[c-nsp] Cisco 650x sup2 / sup32 configuration - what makes sense?
Jeff Meyers
Jeff.Meyers at gmx.net
Fri Dec 9 05:39:34 EST 2011
Am 08.12.2011 11:18, schrieb Gert Doering:
Hi,
> 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
I've heard that now multiple times, but a # sh int cap says:
Switch-1#sh int cap mod 5 | i ASIC
Ports on ASIC: 1-24
Ports on ASIC: 1-24
[..]
So does that mean, that even 24 ports share 1x Gigabit? As I said: a
fully utilized port 14 had a negative side-effect on more or less all
ports on the blade but certainly on port #4. My understanding is, that
this should not be the case if the ports 1-8, 9-16 and so on build a group.
>> 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.
What about 6148A-GE-TX or 6548-GE-TX? Will one of those modules help me
to solve this issue or at least make it less worse?
Thanks!
More information about the cisco-nsp
mailing list