[j-nsp] MX104 limitation

Thu Mar 23 08:43:19 EDT 2017

Javier, I have the same issue on the mx104Š. Increase the latency when
traffic of one AE interface is near from 40GB( 40GB tx and 28rx), and I
have others peers on this mxŠ. When traffic goes down this latency is low
againŠ.. When I see this e-mail deactivate the sampling on interfaces and
goes to make a tests again todayŠ

Rodrigo Augusto
Gestor de T.I.  Grupo Connectoway
http://www.connectoway.com.br <http://www.connectoway.com.br/>
http://www.1telecom.com.br <http://www.1telecom.com.br/>
* rodrigo at connectoway.com.br
( (81) 3497-6060
( (81) 98184-3646
( INOC-DBA 52965*100

On 22/03/17 22:31, "juniper-nsp on behalf of Javier Rodriguez"
<juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net on behalf of
rodriguezsotelo at gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>As Nitzan suggested, I deactivated the inline jflow and the traffic has
>increased.
>Now I ask, what is the real forwarding capacity of this box? 40G in + 40G
>out? (now it didn't reach 40G in total)
>
>Javier.
>
>2017-03-20 12:15 GMT-03:00 Javier Rodriguez <rodriguezsotelo at gmail.com>:
>
>> Nitzan, thank you very much, I'll keep that in mind.
>> Anyway I can not understand how the router "eats" the packets without
>> being counted ....That gives me panic!
>> I can't find discarded packets anywhere!
>>
>> JR.
>>
>> 2017-03-20 2:31 GMT-03:00 Nitzan Tzelniker <nitzan.tzelniker at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> We saw a limitation around 40Gbps when running MX80 with RE based jflow
>>> (inline works good ) we didnt got good explanation why it limit the
>>>traffic
>>> so try to disable some features and see if it help
>>>
>>> Nitzan
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 6:14 AM, Javier Rodriguez <
>>> rodriguezsotelo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mmm no, I think it doesn't  work on MX80 / MX104.
>>>>
>>>> JR.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2017-03-19 23:14 GMT-03:00 Olivier Benghozi
>>>><olivier.benghozi at wifirst.fr
>>>> >:
>>>>
>>>> > What about bypass-queuing-chip on MIC interfaces ? Would it work on
>>>> > MX80/104 ?
>>>> >
>>>> > > On 20 march 2017 at 01:32, Saku Ytti <saku at ytti.fi> wrote :
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Ok that's only 31Gbps total, without having any actual data, my
>>>>best
>>>> > > guess is that you're running through QX. Only quick reason I can
>>>>come
>>>> > > up for HW to limit on so modest traffic levels.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > On 20 March 2017 at 02:25, Javier Rodriguez <
>>>> rodriguezsotelo at gmail.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> > >> Soku,
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Maybe there was a misunderstanding , the inbound traffic on
>>>>fpc2's
>>>> LAG
>>>> > was
>>>> > >> 4Gbps , and the outbound traffic was 27Gbps aprox. That outbound
>>>> traffic
>>>> > >> enters by the fpc1 and fpc0.
>>>> > >> It's IMIX traffic, the average packet size is 1250Bytes (out)
>>>> 200Bytes
>>>> > (in).
>>>> > >> I tried to see dropped packets with "show precl-eng 5 statistics
>>>>"
>>>> and
>>>> > "show
>>>> > >> mqchip 0 drop stats" at pfe shell but it's 0. Does it save
>>>> historical
>>>> > data?
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> <--27G-- | | <--27G--
>>>> > >> |FPC2 FPC 0/1 |
>>>> > >> --4G--> |     | --4G-->
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Regards,
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Javier.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> 2017-03-19 20:43 GMT-03:00 Saku Ytti <saku at ytti.fi>:
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> Hey,
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> There aren't multiple FPCs on the box really, there is only
>>>>single
>>>> MQ
>>>> > >>> chip out of where all ports sit, usually MIC ports behind
>>>> additional
>>>> > >>> IX chip, which is not congested. It's architecturally single
>>>> linecard
>>>> > >>> fabricless box.
>>>> > >>> You're saying you're pushing on the 4x10GE fixed ports
>>>>31+31Gbps,
>>>> e.g.
>>>> > >>> 62Gbps? It might be possible on (perhaps artificially)
>>>>unfortunate
>>>> > >>> cell alignment that it could be congested on so low values. Are
>>>>all
>>>> > >>> the packets same size, i.e is this lab scenario or just IMIX
>>>> traffic?
>>>> > >>> MQ pfe exceptions and MQ=>LU counters might be interesting to
>>>>see.
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> If you use QX chip, 62Gbps would be really good, QX chip is not
>>>> > >>> dimensioned for line rate _unidir_ (i.e. can't do even 40Gbps).
>>>>If
>>>> you
>>>> > >>> don't know if you're using QX or not, just deactive whole
>>>> > >>> class-of-service and scheduer config in interfaces.
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> On 20 March 2017 at 01:26, Javier Rodriguez <
>>>> rodriguezsotelo at gmail.com
>>>> > >
>>>> > >>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>> Hi,
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>> Thanks for your reply Saku.
>>>> > >>>> The problem is that fpc2 (fixed ports) can't overcome 31Gbps
>>>>(in +
>>>> > out)
>>>> > >>>> with 6Mpps. The graph shows a straight line as if it were being
>>>> > limited.
>>>> > >>>> I have moved some interfaces from LAG to fpc1 and fpc0 and the
>>>> traffic
>>>> > >>>> has
>>>> > >>>> incresed. (It only has a tunnel-service in fpc0 of 1g)
>>>> > >>>> It's as if it were being limited by the MQ, but I do not see
>>>> discarded
>>>> > >>>> packages, or I do not know where to look at them.
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>> JR.
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>> 2017-03-19 6:53 GMT-03:00 Saku Ytti <ytti at ntt.net>:
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>>> Hey Javier,
>>>> > >>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>
>>>> > >>>>> MX104 and MX80 (1st gen Trio MQ/LU) should do about 55Mpps and
>>>> 75Gbps
>>>> > >>>>> (in+out).
>>>> > >>>>>
>>>> > >>>>> On 19 March 2017 at 09:12, Javier Rodriguez <
>>>> > rodriguezsotelo at gmail.com>
>>>> > >>>>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>> > >>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>> I need a bit of your knowledge.
>>>> > >>>>>> I have a MX104 as PE router with 4 LAGs.
>>>> > >>>>>> One LAG facing to P router on FPC2 (fixed ports). The other
>>>>LAGs
>>>> > >>>>>> distributed in FPC0 and FPC1.
>>>> > >>>>>> The problem is that traffic is being limited when reach 28G
>>>> out/ 4G
>>>> > >>>>>> in
>>>> > >>>>>> (31Gbps total).
>>>> > >>>>>> I changed one interface (10G) of the LAG (to P router) to
>>>>FPC1
>>>> and
>>>> > >>>>>> the
>>>> > >>>>>> traffic has grown a little more.
>>>> > >>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>> Where is the limitation? In the MQ chip?
>>>> > >>>>>> Where can I see those discarded packages?
>>>> > >>>>>> How much traffic will the router support on FPC2?
>>>> > >>>>>> Where could I get a graphic of its internal architecture?
>>>> > >>>>>> Does a MX80 have the same behavior?
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>>> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Atte.
>>>>
>>>> Javier I. Rodríguez Sotelo
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Atte.
>>
>> Javier I. Rodríguez Sotelo
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Atte.
>
>Javier I. Rodríguez Sotelo
>_______________________________________________
>juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp