Re: WFQ On High Speed Link [7:34913]
If the link is such a high speed, why use wfq or anything else other than fifo, if, as we have been saying, it takes to long to process and pritorize the packet at that high of a speed? The only time I know of to use a specialized queueing at high speeds is if you have lets say a t3 that comes into a router and the other end is a T1 or a Gig backbone that comes into a Catalyst and the other ports are 10/100. Then you need queueing. But other than that I can't think of a reason you need queueing in a diffserv environment. It takes too long. -- RFC 1149 Compliant. PING wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... There are circumstances when WFQ and CBWFQ are used on high speed interfaces, specially in diffserv QoS environment. Nadeem == s vermill wrote: All, Would you be so kind as to share your thoughts/experience with WFQ on high speed links? I know that Cisco generally considers it to be unnecessary on links greater than 2 Mbps. I have a client with a 16 Mbps HSSI connection between 3640 routers. The config has been in place for a long time. However, the circuit does not seem to support the throughput that they should be getting. I finally got them to share a copy of the config file. Not only is WFQ enabled, but the congestive discard value was left at a default 64 messages. I am wondering if this is just unnecessary or if it is/can be detrimental? As I said, there are indications that there are throughput issues. Please note that I am just looking for comments. Unfortunately, I have never had my hands on any of their equipment (yet). Thus, I have no debug or even visual observations to offer. All of my information is third party. Just trying to understand the wisdom of using WFQ in this environment. Many thanks, Scott -- Ishrat Nadeem Zahid CCNP Cisco Systems,Inc. Chelmsford, MA 01824 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=35676t=34913 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WFQ On High Speed Link [7:34913]
There are circumstances when WFQ and CBWFQ are used on high speed interfaces, specially in diffserv QoS environment. Nadeem == s vermill wrote: All, Would you be so kind as to share your thoughts/experience with WFQ on high speed links? I know that Cisco generally considers it to be unnecessary on links greater than 2 Mbps. I have a client with a 16 Mbps HSSI connection between 3640 routers. The config has been in place for a long time. However, the circuit does not seem to support the throughput that they should be getting. I finally got them to share a copy of the config file. Not only is WFQ enabled, but the congestive discard value was left at a default 64 messages. I am wondering if this is just unnecessary or if it is/can be detrimental? As I said, there are indications that there are throughput issues. Please note that I am just looking for comments. Unfortunately, I have never had my hands on any of their equipment (yet). Thus, I have no debug or even visual observations to offer. All of my information is third party. Just trying to understand the wisdom of using WFQ in this environment. Many thanks, Scott -- Ishrat Nadeem Zahid CCNP Cisco Systems,Inc. Chelmsford, MA 01824 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=35653t=34913 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WFQ On High Speed Link [7:34913]
All, Would you be so kind as to share your thoughts/experience with WFQ on high speed links? I know that Cisco generally considers it to be unnecessary on links greater than 2 Mbps. I have a client with a 16 Mbps HSSI connection between 3640 routers. The config has been in place for a long time. However, the circuit does not seem to support the throughput that they should be getting. I finally got them to share a copy of the config file. Not only is WFQ enabled, but the congestive discard value was left at a default 64 messages. I am wondering if this is just unnecessary or if it is/can be detrimental? As I said, there are indications that there are throughput issues. Please note that I am just looking for comments. Unfortunately, I have never had my hands on any of their equipment (yet). Thus, I have no debug or even visual observations to offer. All of my information is third party. Just trying to understand the wisdom of using WFQ in this environment. Many thanks, Scott Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=34913t=34913 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: WFQ On High Speed Link [7:34913]
I don't *know* that it would be detrimental, but I wouldn't be suprised. You're asking the router's processor to do advanced screening on ALOT of packets. It could easily overload the process utilization. First thing I'd do is look at that. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=34916t=34913 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WFQ On High Speed Link [7:34913]
I've heard that WFQ at this speed is detrimental due to the time it takes to process the queues. That ends up leading to a longer delay than any congestion would cause. John s vermill 2/8/02 4:04:20 PM All, Would you be so kind as to share your thoughts/experience with WFQ on high speed links? I know that Cisco generally considers it to be unnecessary on links greater than 2 Mbps. I have a client with a 16 Mbps HSSI connection between 3640 routers. The config has been in place for a long time. However, the circuit does not seem to support the throughput that they should be getting. I finally got them to share a copy of the config file. Not only is WFQ enabled, but the congestive discard value was left at a default 64 messages. I am wondering if this is just unnecessary or if it is/can be detrimental? As I said, there are indications that there are throughput issues. Please note that I am just looking for comments. Unfortunately, I have never had my hands on any of their equipment (yet). Thus, I have no debug or even visual observations to offer. All of my information is third party. Just trying to understand the wisdom of using WFQ in this environment. Many thanks, Scott Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=34924t=34913 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
