Hi, If you run with inline jflow what was your sampling rate ? IIRC there is some bw limitation for inline sampling but I dont know if it include the sampling calculation or not
Nitzan On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Saku Ytti <s...@ytti.fi> wrote: > It's still about 75Gbps (i.e. for example 35Gbps+40Gbps) and 55Mpps. > > But memory bandwidth is dependant on how well packet aligns into > cells, in manufactured example you could have packet which cause > singly byte to be transferred on second cell, essentially doubling > internal memory bandwidth requirement. > Traffic hitting QX will also experience significantly lower memory > bandwidth. > > This is not MX104 specific, same applies to MX80, and MPC1, MPC2, MPC3 > on per Trio basis. > > On 23 March 2017 at 03:31, Javier Rodriguez <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 > > > > -- > ++ytti > _______________________________________________ > 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