[j-nsp] Thoughts on MX80 v MX104 RE performance

Jerry Jones jjones at danrj.com
Mon Apr 20 12:28:24 EDT 2015

Generally we use the MX80 numbers for the 104. Though the 104 is slightly better than an 80.

On Apr 20, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Mike Williams <mike.williams at comodo.com> wrote:

Hey all,

There was a discussion May last year about the MX104 and BGP performance.
With the take away being that the MX104 RE is still pretty weak, at least 
compared to the modern x86 REs fitted to some of the "bigger" models.
The RE-B-1800x1 in an M7i is certainly night and day faster than an MX80!

On Friday 16 May 2014 22:04:05 Saku Ytti wrote:
> All MX, T, M linecards use Freescale PQ3 family processors. MX80
> control-plane as well.
> Freescale is phasing out PQ3 and MX104 uses QorIQ in control-plane and in
> 'linecard'.
> Exact model for MX80 is 8572 and MX104 is P5021

MX104 RE is 500Mhz faster and a newer CPU architecture, so .... potentially 
.... 50% faster? 60% faster? 100% faster?

Does anyone out there have any experience of the relative performance of the 
MX104 RE over the MX80 RE?
RE-B-1800x1 performance would be very nice, but not exactly probable.

Our usage (multiple full BGP views, into multiple tables with altered 
preferences) puts an awful strain on the MX80 RE each time a policy change is 
made, or peers flap. Not end of the world bad, but pretty bad.

And relatedly, has anyone heard any recent rumours around when Junos might 
take advantage of the second CPU?
From the Freescale docs both CPUs are dual-core.


Mike Williams
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net

More information about the juniper-nsp mailing list