[j-nsp] MX80 Opinions

[Serge Vautour]

Hello,

Would it be possible for you to share what code version you recommend for Trio? 
We've had a few MX80s in Prod with 10.2S6 for a while now. We need to add MPC 
cards to our MX960s and are struggling what version to go with. Continue with 
10.2 or move to 10.4? We're also planning on adding alot more MX80s.

Thanks,
Serge



----- Original Message ----
From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>
To: Doug Hanks <dhanks at juniper.net>
Cc: "juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net" <juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Sent: Thu, June 2, 2011 9:10:19 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX80 Opinions

On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 04:26:54PM -0700, Doug Hanks wrote:
> Daniel,
> 
> I have nothing but good things to say about the MX80.

I have almost nothing but good things to say, now that 90-95% of the 
cripling Trio-specific bugs have been worked out of the current code.

The integrated RE is probably the biggest design limitation. For 
example, we just got bit by a bad flash drive on one, which caused the 
kernel to lock up when writing to the disk. This required a physical 
power cycle to bring the box back every time it happened, left no 
evidence in the logs (so we had to catch it actually happening on 
console to know what was going on), and required a complete RMA of the 
chassis to fix. The lack of redundant REs severely limits the potential 
of this otherwise excellent little box. Oh and don't forget, a single RE 
will make your upgrade process take a lot longer too.

Juniper would really do well to introduce a 1U small/simple external RE 
which can be connected over Ethernet, to "redundantize" a box like the 
MX80, and to be a reasonably sized BGP route reflector.

-- 
Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>      http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp