Sam, IIRC, Cisco uses 64 byte packets as the baseline. FYI, I have been conducting some throughput tests on 2 2621's in the lab and here are some results for you. I used TTCP between 2 Sparc ultras for the traffic. The sparc ultras can generate about 90Mbps with no routers between them, so the 2621's are the limiting factor and not TTCP or the sparcs. I used a window size of 65,535 and the max packet size for my tests:
No fast switching 9.3 Mbps W/ fast switching 51.2 Mbps W/ Netflow 46.5 Mbps W/ Cef 51.2 Mbps Nat, no fast switching 8.1 Mbps Nat, w/ fast switching 31.5 Mbps Nat, w/ netflow 14.1 Mbps Nat, w/ cef 29.5 Mbps ACL, no fast switching 8.7 Mbps ACL, w/ fast switching 40.4 Mbps ACL, w/ netflow 46.5 Mbps ACL, w/ cef 43.9 Mbps The IOS used for this testing was 12.1.5(T9) (the ACL was 20 entries, all numbers are averages of 5 tests, but the deviations were very small) The thing I found most interesting was that for the most part, using simple fast switching produced as good or better results than netflow or CEF. The only exception to this was with the ACL, but fast switching was only a few Mbps behind netflow and CEF. Also, notice the suprisingly bad performance of netflow when using NAT. I ran this test many times with different NAT configurations and the results were always consistent. My local Cisco SE didn't really have a good explanation, and I haven't tried to really track down the issue, but I wouldn't use netflow if your using NAT. :-) (also notice there is a 40% performance hit when using NAT in the best case) Keep in mind these were single, persistent flows, so they did not simulate real-world traffic patterns. However, it does give an idea of the top end performance of the 2621. (suprisingly better than I expected given the low-end nature of the box) I should also mention that the CPU hovered around 99% for the duration of the tests. HTH, Kent -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of sam sneed Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 12:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cisco's pps claims [7:38956] I noticed Cisco uses pps when they give their specs for routers, firewalls, etc. What is the assumed packet size when they come up with these specs? I'm planning on using 2 2621's in HSRP mode (getting default routes via BGP) and need to be able to support a constant 10 Mb/sec and would like know if these routers will do the trick. thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=38976&t=38956 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
