[c-nsp] ASR 1002 vs ISR 3945

[Jay Nakamura]

Our 2851 is doing about 27% CPU for 11kpps, 50mbps.  But it's really
not doing anything extra other than routing and two full BGP peers.

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Bill Blackford
<BBlackford at nwresd.k12.or.us> wrote:
> I'm not familiar with the 3945. Does it ship with the NPE G1?
>
> I turned off as many features as I could on my 7301 (NPE-G1) and it fell over at 60kpps. As it sits right now, at 15kpps the 7301 is at 27% CPU. My ASR1002 is at 0% with 25kpps. I suspect this would still be 0% when I occasionally micro burst to 300kpps. This ISR must be much more robust than I'd ever give it credit.
>
> -b
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Brad Henshaw
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 6:50 PM
> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1002 vs ISR 3945
>
> Clue Store wrote:
>
>> Between the 2 sites will be a 200mb (1 Gigabit burstable) link.
>> How far will the 3945 take me...
>> 200mb non-encrypted traffic to start (possibly ramped up to 1gb over
> the
>> next 12 months) QoS BGP (Non internet tables) IGP
>
> I'm not running any ASR's yet (but will be soon) however:
>
> Raw PPS figures:
> 3945: 982kpps
> ASR1002-F: 4.42Mpps
>
> They're best case, with features off. It's incredibly easy to knock ISR
> G1 performance down by 80-95% by turning on QoS, tunnelling and other
> features. Not sure about the ISR G2's but I would guess it's the same
> (anyone else care to comment?)
>
> ASR should maintain performance with QoS and possibly other features on
> (not crypto) as these are implemented in hardware.
>
> Some imaginary figures:
> 3945 with features enabled, 80% [optimistic] performance hit, 200B paks:
> 314Mbps aggregate (or 157Mbps full duplex)
> ASR1002-F with features enabled, 0% performance hit, 200B paks: 2.5Gbps
> aggregate (limited by ESP bandwidth)
>
> Adjust the sums as you see fit, but the ASR seems the better fit. If the
> majority of traffic is based on large packets you might be able to get
> away with the 3945 for a while, if you absolutely had to.
>
> Regards,
> Brad
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>