[j-nsp] Distributing OSPF load on MX80

[Simon Dixon]

I've been using IPFIX on a few MX80's for a while now,  the only impact
I've seen on the RE CPU is that it can spike to 100% during a commit, if
the router also has a full BGP table.

Otherwise the RE sits at 6%.

Using the default Jflow on the MX80's was horrible, the RE CPU would sit
around 70% most of the time, and if doing a 1:1 sampling rate around 25% of
the flows were lost.


--
Dicko.


On 30 November 2012 06:45, Pavel Lunin <plunin at senetsy.ru> wrote:

> 2012/11/29 Saku Ytti <saku at ytti.fi>
>
> > On (2012-11-29 20:34 +0400), Pavel Lunin wrote:
> >
> > > AFAIK, at least as of 11.something, BFD was handled by RE on MX80, not
> > > the host-CPU like it is on the big MXes. Looks like it's because the
> > > host-CPU on MX80 is quite less quick (marketing way of reading this is
> >
> > I suppose host-CPU means PFE/LC CPU? MX80 has pq3 8544, MPC2 has pq3
> 8548.
> > MPC2 needs to talk to two trios, MX80 only one. So it does not feel like
> > MX80 PFE CPU is underpowered compared to big brothers.
>
>
> From the frequency point of view — yes. Not sure my knowlege is enough for
> a full-scale Steve Jobs' style megaherz-myth holywar, but looks like the
> 8548's built-in ethernet can be the key:
> http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/taxonomy.jsp?code=PCPPCMPC85XX
>
> Well' don't get me wrong, I don't know the right anwer, I only heard some
> rumors that MX80 "linecard" host subsystem is weeker that that of the MPCs.
> It might be totally wrong though.
>
> IMHO, a good field way to check whether it's of the same capability would
> be to test inline Trio IPFIX performance on MX80. Flow export is done by
> this CPU. I've been wondering how powerful MX80 is in inline JFlow since
> Juniper announced this feature, but didn't have an opportunity to test it.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Pavel
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>