[c-nsp] Output drops on 2960

Tue Feb 9 05:10:48 EST 2016

thanks Nick for the feedback (and sorry for hijacking this thread)

I am still quite frustrated with the number of issues with that line of
switch considering that it has been introduced 3 years ago now... Is that
the new norm? Or has it always been the norm and I was just lucky?

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Nick Cutting <ncutting at edgetg.co.uk> wrote:

> We have also run into QOS issues.
> Policy routing did not even work at all before 3.3, local policy routing
> before 3.5
> We use WLC on most of our 3650 and 3850 at client sites, much easier to
> setup than a standalone controller - no real issues except you need to be
> running 3.6x to support most of the new AC AP's.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
> Antoine Monnier
> Sent: 08 February 2016 07:56
> To: Jeremy Bresley
> Cc: cisco-nsp NSP
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Output drops on 2960
>
> In our environment, with QoS applied on the LAN (classification, marking,
> queuing, etc) we have had quite a few issues with the 3850 deployed at the
> access-layer, mainly centered on QoS. We are at our fourth release due to
> the QoS issues.
> Cisco has now promised us (we have heard it before) the QoS issues are
> fixed in 3.6.3, however the latest issue is corruption of the flash when
> upgrading to 3.6.3 ... not what you want when upgrading lot of switches
> from remote....
>
> Has anyone used "advanced features" (DHCP snooping, DAI, .1x, WLC, CAPWAP
> termination, etc) on that switch? Are you running into bugs a lot?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Jeremy Bresley <brez at brezworks.com> wrote:
>
> > BRKARC-3438 from CiscoLive has a great architectural session detailing
> > the 3650/3850s.  Pages 80-82 mention that there's a 6MB buffer
> > compared to a 2MB buffer on the 3750X.
> >
> > In my previous job, I did start rolling out 3650s to several locations.
> > Other than the IOS XE image being significantly larger and taking
> > longer to download to switches at a remote site with a small circuit,
> > we had 0 issues with them operationally. Configurations from older
> > 3560 series switches are 99% copy/paste (a few minor things that were
> > mostly cosmetic changes or differences in syntax like multicast
> > routing configuration, which is the same on 3650/3850 as it is on
> 4500E/X now).
> >
> > One point to be aware of if you're coming from 3560X/3750X is that the
> > 3850 continues to have the uplink modules, the 3650s went back to a
> > fixed configuration for the uplink ports, so you need to decide if you
> > want 1G or 10G uplinks when you purchase them.  Pricing on the 3650s
> > were the same for a like-for-like 3560X.  3650s can also have a 4x10G
> > uplink, which makes them a lot more suitable for a small IDF
> > aggregation switch than the 3560X's which only had 2 10G ports available.
> >
> > Jeremy Bresley
> > brez at brezworks.com
> >
> > (I work for Cisco, but this is information I got from a public
> > presentation, and I'm in no way speaking for my employer.)
> >
> >
> > On 2/5/16 14:01, John Gaffney wrote:
> >
> >> We do have a few of those out the in field and they are solid switches.
> >> Not a bad thought. Looking at the buffer size table looks like its
> >> much fatter than the 2960..
> >>
> >> The 3850 and 3650 seem like OK middle ground. Anybody deploy those?
> >> They decent?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Mack McBride [mailto:mack.mcbride at viawest.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 1:37 PM
> >> To: John Gaffney <jgaffney at nan.com>; Nick Cutting
> >> <ncutting at edgetg.co.uk>; Tom Hill <tom at ninjabadger.net>
> >> Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> >> Subject: RE: [c-nsp] Output drops on 2960
> >>
> >> 4948Es are pretty good if you need 10/100/1000.
> >> They are also relatively cheap and can be bought used at a good
> discount.
> >> If you don't need 10/100 then the Nexus 9300 series has a shared
> >> 50Mbyte buffer.
> >> But they are relatively pricey and new so used is not really available.
> >>
> >>
> >> Mack McBride | Senior Network Architect | ViaWest, Inc.
> >> O: 720.891.2502 | C: 303.720.2711 | mack.mcbride at viawest.com |
> >> www.viawest.com
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf
> >> Of John Gaffney
> >> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 10:46 AM
> >> To: Nick Cutting; Tom Hill
> >> Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> >> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Output drops on 2960
> >>
> >> This looks like a great guide.
> >>
> >> Looks like I'll be working to replace the switch with something with
> >> more power. Any body have a recommendation for a switch with some
> >> bigger buffers and 2x 10G uplinks? Need at least 12 Gig ports.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf
> >> Of Nick Cutting
> >> Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 11:00 AM
> >> To: Tom Hill <tom at ninjabadger.net>
> >> Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> >> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Output drops on 2960
> >>
> >> I use this list for switch buffers - seems pretty accurate to me:
> >>
> >> http://people.ucsc.edu/~warner/buffer.html
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf
> >> Of Tom Hill
> >> Sent: 05 February 2016 15:54
> >> Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> >> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Output drops on 2960
> >>
> >> On 05/02/16 15:45, Nikolay Shopik wrote:
> >>
> >>> Though, I've not seen anything mentioned in regards to the newer
> >>>>> 3650/3850.
> >>>>>
> >>>> These have double amount of shared memory compare to what
> >>>> 2960S/3560X
> >>> have
> >>>
> >> Good to know!
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tom
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----NAN Cloud Services, powered by McAfee, has scanned and cleared
> >> this message of any viruses.----
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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/
> >> This message contains information that may be confidential,
> >> privileged or otherwise protected by law from disclosure. It is
> >> intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). Unless you are
> >> the addressee or authorized agent of the addressee, you may not
> >> review, copy, distribute or disclose to anyone the message or any
> >> information contained within. If you have received this message in
> >> error, please contact the sender by electronic reply and immediately
> delete all copies of the message.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----NAN Cloud Services, powered by McAfee, has scanned and cleared
> >> this message of any viruses.----
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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/
>
>