[c-nsp] 7200 / NPE-G2 - Rodney Dunn - net.nether.puck.cisco-nsp

17 messages in net.nether.puck.cisco-nsp[c-nsp] 7200 / NPE-G2

From	Sent On	Attachments
	Apr 17, 2007 7:27 am
Arie Vayner (avayner)	Apr 17, 2007 8:16 am
	Apr 17, 2007 11:01 am
Clayton Zekelman	Apr 17, 2007 5:07 pm
Frank Bulk	Apr 17, 2007 6:39 pm
Brian Turnbow	Apr 18, 2007 12:40 am
Rodney Dunn	Apr 18, 2007 5:41 am
Gert Doering	Apr 18, 2007 6:23 am
Frank Bulk	Apr 18, 2007 8:48 am
Brian Turnbow	Apr 18, 2007 9:47 am
Rodney Dunn	Apr 18, 2007 11:15 am
Rodney Dunn	Apr 25, 2007 5:49 am
Euan Galloway	Apr 25, 2007 6:26 am
Justin M. Streiner	Apr 25, 2007 6:43 am
Rodney Dunn	Apr 25, 2007 6:46 am
Mark Taylor	Apr 25, 2007 8:15 am
Rodney Dunn	Apr 25, 2007 8:19 am

Subject:	[c-nsp] 7200 / NPE-G2
From:	Rodney Dunn (rod...@cisco.com)
Date:	Apr 25, 2007 5:49:53 am
List:	net.nether.puck.cisco-nsp

Here is a rough spreadsheet with the numbers we had done. It wasn't anything fancy and it was pure GE to GE with no features on the box at all.

It illustrates what I was explaining about the CPU to load comparison with the G1.

Hope this helps.

Rodney

Just an fyi. Due to some architectural differences you can't really compare the CPU numbers between previous NPE's to the G2.

While the graph of CPU vs. pps goes up pretty closely inline with what a G1 will do the G2 will forward close to double the G1 in packets per second approaching the no drop rate (NDR) the G2 can handle.

We (TAC) have had multiple cases lately where customers upgrade to a G2 and don't see their CPU drop considerably and they think the box isn't as good as we said it is. That isn't true because when you go back and evaluate the NDR's side by side the G2 is much faster.

I was personally involved in those NDR test comparison between the G1 and G2 and know it's true.

Rodney

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 09:40:19AM +0200, Brian Turnbow wrote:

I recently did an upgrade from npe-400 to G1 on a router with 1600pppoa users
that pumps 50Mbs(about 40% of that Voip traffic) The 400 was running at 75% the G1 dropped it to 35% I would expect the G2 to do even better.

-----Original Message----- From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at
puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk Sent: mercoled? 18 aprile 2007 3.39 To: clayton at mnsi.net; dxz107 at gmail.com; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 7200 / NPE-G2

That raises a good question...if an NPE-400 with 2000 PPPoA and 35 PPPoE operates at 44% today, what would a G2 bring that down to?

-----Original Message----- From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Clayton Zekelman Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:08 PM To: ; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 7200 / NPE-G2

I'm running one with Version 12.4(4)XD4. So far 15 weeks of uptime, no issues with 924 L2TP, and 762 PPPoE sessions - 24% CPU Utilization.

Come to think of it, I would have thought I'd be seeing a bit better performance.

----- Original Message ---------------

Subject: [c-nsp] 7200 / NPE-G2 From: " " <dxz107 at gmail.com> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:27:02 -0400 To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net

Does anyone have experience/feedback that they're willing to share on the moderately new G2 engine ? I suspect that software is more of a wild card than the hardware itself. Does anyone have an opinion on whether one is better off with 12.4.11T or 12.2SB ?

	Start a set with this search
	Include this search in one of my sets
	Exclude this search from one of my sets