[j-nsp] Cisco ASR 9001 vs Juniper MX104

[Stepan Kucherenko]

Some RE-S-1800X4, yeah.

ASR9k has RSP440, so quad core x86 as well. Comparable I think.

Not sure about 7600 but definitely something old.

02.12.2015 19:18, Colton Conor пишет:
> Stephen,
>
> Which RE is that on the MX480? The RE2000 or the quad core one?
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:42 AM, Stepan Kucherenko <twh at megagroup.ru
> <mailto:twh at megagroup.ru>> wrote:
>
>     Should've put it here in the first post, got already asked about it
>     offlist couple of times.
>
>     I was testing it on MX80 with slow RE, so obviously numbers will
>     change on faster REs but difference will still be there.
>
>     ~1.5min taking full table from MX480 (nice RE, 85k updates)
>     ~3min from 7600 (old and slow RE, 89k updates)
>     almost 5min from ASR9k (nice RE, 450k updates)
>
>     It'll be even more noticeable when Junos will be able to run rpd on
>     a dedicated core.
>
>
>
>     Keep in mind that it's still not actual convergence time, Junos is
>     still lagging with FIB updates long after that.
>
>     Sadly I was unable to find my old convergence test numbers but krt
>     queue was dissipating for at least couple of minutes after BGP
>     converged. I case you're wondering if it was the known rpd bug with
>     low krt priority - no, I tested it after it was fixed. Not that I'd
>     call it "fixed".
>
>     And that's what I don't like about MX-es :-) Not sure if it's faster
>     or slower on ASR9k though.
>
>
>     On 02.12.2015 12:30, James Bensley wrote:
>
>         On 1 December 2015 at 17:29, Stepan Kucherenko <twh at megagroup.ru
>         <mailto:twh at megagroup.ru>> wrote:
>
>             My biggest gripe with ASR9k (or IOS XR in particular) is
>             that Cisco stopped
>             grouping BGP prefixes in one update if they have same
>             attributes so it's one
>             prefix per update now (or sometimes two).
>
>             Transit ISP we tested it with pinged TAC and got a response
>             that it's
>             "software/hardware limitation" and nothing can be done.
>
>             I don't know when this regression happened but now taking
>             full feed from
>             ASR9k is almost twice as slow as taking it from 7600 with
>             weak RE and 3-4
>             times slower than taking it from MX.
>
>             I'm not joking, test it yourself. Just look at the traffic
>             dump. As I
>             understand it, it's not an edge case so you must see it as well.
>
>             In my case it was 450k updates per 514k prefixes for full
>             feed from ASR9k,
>             89k updates per 510k prefixes from 7600 and 85k updates per
>             516k prefixes
>             from MX480. Huge difference.
>
>             It's not a show stopper but I'm sure it must be a
>             significant impact on
>             convergence time.
>
>
>         How long timewise is it taking you to converge?
>
>         Last time I bounced a BGP session to a full table provider it
>         took sub
>         1 minute to take in all the routes. I wasn't actually timing so I
>         don't know how long exactly.
>
>         Cheers,
>         James.
>         _______________________________________________
>         juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>         <mailto:juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>
>         https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>     <mailto:juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>
>     https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
>