Look into a PERL script called MRTG which will let you graph your traffic
usage on your lease line.
Srihari Babu wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>hi all,
>i want to know about bandwith monitor.by
>which i can check the bandwidth of my leased line.
>because i am not getting sufficient bandwidth fron my
>ISP>
>i would like to know whether my ISP is not providiing
>sufficient bandwidht what he promised, or there may be
>a problem in our LAN.how to know the band width. is
>there any tools to check the leased line bandwidth.
>please help.
>
>thanks in advance.
>
>
>SRIHARI
>
>--- John Neiberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We have a 7513 as our backbone router and pre-12.0
>> it was running on average at maybe 9-10% CPU. After
>> upgrading to 12.1 and turning on CEF, that dropped
>> to around 5%. That's really not a good test because
>> we were hardly pushing the thing to begin with.
>> Still, it does seem to make a noticable difference
>> and we haven't had any problems with it.
>>
>> By the way, off-topic, I seem to have resolved the
>> problems I had with excitemail, so I've moved back
>> to using [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lately, my email address
>> has been changing almost daily!
>>
>> John
>>
>> >
>> > John, Bob, Raj, Phillip and the Group,
>> >
>> > I hadn't thought of CEF much as I "thought" it
>> wasn't available on the
>> > smaller routers. i.e. - only on the routers with
>> line cards etc.
>> >
>> > However, I just enabled CEF on a 2611 and it
>> created its table on the fly in
>> > no time flat. The 2611 won't do dCEF however.
>> Also, the smaller routers
>> > can't do cef accounting.
>> >
>> > Anyway, now I have to mock something up in the lab
>> to see if we can
>> > determine how much of any improvement CEF will
>> give us. Since we're not
>> > using CEF anywhere in our network I can't just
>> turn it on without a bit more
>> > research.
>> >
>> > If it only lessens the CPU load by a few percent
>> then bigger hardware is in
>> > our future, but if we see gains of 20% or more
>> then CEF would indeed be a
>> > cheap solution.
>> >
>> > I noticed that CEF has issues with policy routing
>> and other features - but
>> > so far we're not using any of them.
>> >
>> > So, another question - does anyone have any
>> idea/experience on how much CEF
>> > will gain for us? Given the average 50% load on
>> the router - practically
>> > all switching load???
>> >
>> > tia
>> >
>> > Kevin Wigle
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "John Neiberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 4:11 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Can someone interpret this please?
>> >
>> >
>> > > I just checked CCO and there are so many
>> CPU-related bugs in 12.0(5) that
>> > I stopped counting after a while. You might want
>> to upgrade, if feasible.
>> > >
>> > > Also, try doing a show align to see if you're
>> getting spurious memory
>> > access errors. One of the bugs mentioned a high
>> CPU usage due to these.
>> > >
>> > > HTH,
>> > > John
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Bob, Phil - and the group.....
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks for the input, gives me more to think
>> about.
>> > > >
>> > > > Some more history..........
>> > > >
>> > > > This router is a 3620 with OC3 and
>> FastEthernet interfaces. It has 48
>> > meg
>> > > > and is running 12.0(5)XK1.
>> > > >
>> > > > According to Cisco's docs, the 3620 should be
>> able to handle around
>> > 20-40
>> > > > kpps.
>> > > >
>> > > > However, the router shows only around 2.6 kpps
>> almost evenly split
>> > in/out.
>> > > >
>> > > > I have been unable to verify exactly on CCO
>> but I suspect that a 3620
>> > cannot
>> > > > handle (very well) two high-speed interfaces -
>> more specifically if one
>> > is
>> > > > OC3.
>> > > >
>> > > > I have found info where Cisco, when talking
>> about the OC3 interface for
>> > the
>> > > > 3600 series stated:
>> > > >
>> > > > "Max two high-speed network modules in a Cisco
>> 3640 (includes Fast
>> > Ethernet,
>> > > > ATM, HSSI)"
>> > > >
>> > > > Now the 3640 has a 100mhz processor and the
>> 3620 has a 80 mhz processor.
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm wondering if the SAR process is
>> overwhelming the 3620? I'm sure I
>> > read
>> > > > someplace that only one high-speed interface
>> was recommended for the
>> > 3620
>> > > > but I haven't found that info again.
>> > > >
>> > > > Considering the low level of traffic, what
>> else could be keeping the cpu
>> > > > utilization up so high? Need more info.....
>> let me know!
>> > > >
>> > > > Kevin Wigle
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > > From: "Phillip Heller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > > To: "Kevin Wigle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > > Cc: "cisco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 2:12 PM
>> > > > Subject: Re: Can someone interpret this
>> please?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Kevin Wigle wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Dear group,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Investigating a router that is starting
>> to loaded down. When I do
>> > a
>> > > > sh proc
>> > > > > cpu I get 50% or cpu utilization but the
>> stats don't seem to add
>> > up to
>> > > > 50%.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Is there another way to try and see
>> where the 50% is coming from?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > sh proc cpu
>> > > > > CPU utilization for five seconds:
>> 44%/44%; one minute: 50%; five
>> > > > minutes:
>> > > > > 52%
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The five second utilization numbers in the
>> above line (44%/44%)
>> > represent
>> > > > > two things. The first number is total
>> processor utilization and the
>> > > > > second is processor utilization due to
>> interrupts. The difference in
>> > > > > these two numbers would be the sum of 5sec
>> utilization by all other
>> > > > > processes.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If utilization due to interrupts increases
>> over time, it represents
>> > > > > traffic growth. If it jumps alot in a short
>> amount of time, it may be
>> > a
>> > > > > DoS attack. You can verify the latter by
>> turning on "ip route-cache
>> > flow"
>> > > > > on suspected interfaces and then looking at
>> the output of "sh ip cache
>> > > > > flow".
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If the processor gets too high with
>> legitimate traffic, you can use
>> > cef or
>> > > > > dcef (ip route-cache cef, ip cef
>> distributed).
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Failing that, you'll probably more beefy
>> hardware.
>> > > > >
>>
>=== message truncated ===
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
>a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
>_________________________________
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
