Well, my guess is that the minuscule additional load I indicated has something to do with the fact that router would have to change the context of the execution for the instruction that follows. I.e. internally, a different parser may need to be involved. I don't believe additional copy of exec is involved though, but it's Cisco™. Anything's possible ;-)
-- Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427 (SP R&S) Senior CCIE Instructor - IPexpert On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:33, Bob McCouch <[email protected]> wrote: > I guess that leads me to ask why the "do" command results in any > additional load versus doing the same command from exec mode. I always > assumed "do" just signaled the CLI parser to run the command as if it was > in exec-mode, but the suggestion that it might generate any extra load at > all is making me wonder if it doesn't do something silly like spawn another > exec session, run the command and pipe the results back to the config mode > session that "do" was run from. > > Marko, do you know how the command actually works? Irrelevant to the lab > exam, I'm sure, but you've piqued my interest. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Apr 14, 2012, at 1:15 PM, Marko Milivojevic <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 09:09, Bob McCouch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'd like to know if anyone can confirm that impact. Does a "do show" >> command actually result in different CPU impact than an exec-mode >> 'show' command?? > > > It is entirely possible, but perhaps 0.005% of the total load. > Virtual-exec has almost the lowest priority on the router anyway, so the > impact should be effectively none. > > -- > Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427 (SP R&S) > Senior CCIE Instructor - IPexpert > > _______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs
