[c-nsp] 7200 / NPE-G2

[Rodney Dunn]

Here is a rough spreadsheet with the numbers we had done.
It wasn't anything fancy and it was pure GE to GE with no
features on the box at all.

It illustrates what I was explaining about the CPU to load
comparison with the G1.

Hope this helps.

Rodney

 

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 08:41:42AM -0400, Rodney Dunn wrote:
> Just an fyi. Due to some architectural differences you can't
> really compare the CPU numbers between previous NPE's to the G2.
> 
> While the graph of CPU vs. pps goes up pretty closely inline with
> what a G1 will do the G2 will forward close to double the G1 in
> packets per second approaching the no drop rate (NDR) the G2 can handle.
> 
> We (TAC) have had multiple cases lately where customers upgrade to a 
> G2 and don't see their CPU drop considerably and they think the box
> isn't as good as we said it is. That isn't true because when you go
> back and evaluate the NDR's side by side the G2 is much faster.
> 
> I was personally involved in those NDR test comparison between the
> G1 and G2 and know it's true.
> 
> Rodney
> 
>  
> 
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 09:40:19AM +0200, Brian Turnbow wrote:
> > I recently did an upgrade from npe-400 to G1 on a router with 1600pppoa users that pumps 50Mbs(about 40% of that Voip traffic)
> > The 400 was running at 75% the G1 dropped it to 35% 
> > I would expect the G2 to do even better. 
> > 
> > Brian
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk
> > Sent: mercoled? 18 aprile 2007 3.39
> > To: clayton at mnsi.net; dxz107 at gmail.com; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 7200 / NPE-G2
> > 
> > That raises a good question...if an NPE-400 with 2000 PPPoA and 35 PPPoE
> > operates at 44% today, what would a G2 bring that down to?
> > 
> > Frank
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> > [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Clayton Zekelman
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:08 PM
> > To: ; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 7200 / NPE-G2
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I'm running one with Version 12.4(4)XD4.  So far 15 weeks of uptime, no
> > issues with 924 L2TP, and 762 PPPoE sessions - 24% CPU Utilization.
> > 
> > Come to think of it, I would have thought I'd be seeing a bit better
> > performance.
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ---------------
> > 
> > Subject: [c-nsp] 7200 / NPE-G2
> >    From: " " <dxz107 at gmail.com>
> >    Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:27:02 -0400
> >      To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > 
> > >Does anyone have experience/feedback that they're willing to share on
> > >the moderately new G2 engine ?  I suspect that software is more of a
> > >wild card than the hardware itself.  Does anyone have an opinion on
> > >whether one is better off with 12.4.11T or 12.2SB ?
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > >https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > >archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/