[c-nsp] Cisco 650x sup2 / sup32 configuration - what makes sense?

Gert Doering gert at greenie.muc.de
Thu Dec 8 05:18:31 EST 2011


On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 11:10:24PM +0100, Jeff Meyers wrote:
> When a customer bursts a GigE port on the 6148-GE-TX, the available 
> bandwidth on all other ports (at least ports 1-24 which seem to share an 
> asic) are affected as well although there is not more than just 
> 2-3GBit/s of traffic on the whole module. What is the best choice here 
> to have reasonable amounts of bandwidth available across the whole box?

The best choice?  Don't use 6148-GE-TX modules.  They are fundamentally
broken (8 ports share one ASIC with a single-GE uplink, one port that's 
"full" will block out the other 7 ports, ...).  It's even worse if
you use them for 100M links, because a saturated 100M link will eat
all the buffers from the other 7 ports on the same ASIC, causing RTT
jumps on these other ports.

> Does it make sense to replace the 6148-GE-TX with a 6748 or is the sup2 
> respectively the sup32 the actual bottleneck?

67xx won't work with the sup32 (thanks, cisco).  I'd go for 6516-GE-TX,
which have a much saner architecture than the 6148-GE-TX *and* will 
work with non-fabric-enabled supervisors.


USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                             gert at greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025                        gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 305 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20111208/eea2fa05/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list