Javier, I have the same issue on the mx104. Increase the latency when traffic of one AE interface is near from 40GB( 40GB tx and 28rx), and I have others peers on this mx. When traffic goes down this latency is low again.. When I see this e-mail deactivate the sampling on interfaces and goes to make a tests again today
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/> * rodr...@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-boun...@puck.nether.net on behalf of rodriguezsot...@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 <rodriguezsot...@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.tzelni...@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 < >>> rodriguezsot...@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.bengh...@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 <s...@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 < >>>> rodriguezsot...@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 <s...@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 < >>>> rodriguezsot...@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 <y...@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 < >>>> > rodriguezsot...@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@puck.nether.net >>>> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Atte. >>>> >>>> Javier I. Rodríguez Sotelo >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@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@puck.nether.net >https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp