Re: [c-nsp] Sup2 (Not Sup2T) on a 6513 (NON-E)
At 02:02 PM 9/9/2016 Friday, Nick Hilliard asserted: Tim Stevenson wrote: > which is 8 x 1G > connections to 8 x 8:1 oversubscribed port ASICs. the easiest way to think of a 6148 is that it's like 8 individual 1G ethernet hubs connected into a 1G switch. Now, now - a hub would flood everything to all other ports. ;) But yes, this card is not one of the architectural high points in the c6k's history... Tim Once you visualise it in these terms, you can immediately see that performance is going to be awful. The best thing to do with these boxes is retire them aggressively. It's generally cheaper to swap them out with 1U boxes than it is to pay the power (and consequently cooling) bill, if you look at it over a lifetime of several years. Nick Tim Stevenson, tstev...@cisco.com Routing & Switching CCIE #5561 Distinguished Engineer, Technical Marketing Data Center Switching Cisco - http://www.cisco.com +1(408)526-6759 ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Sup2 (Not Sup2T) on a 6513 (NON-E)
Tim Stevenson wrote: > which is 8 x 1G > connections to 8 x 8:1 oversubscribed port ASICs. the easiest way to think of a 6148 is that it's like 8 individual 1G ethernet hubs connected into a 1G switch. Once you visualise it in these terms, you can immediately see that performance is going to be awful. The best thing to do with these boxes is retire them aggressively. It's generally cheaper to swap them out with 1U boxes than it is to pay the power (and consequently cooling) bill, if you look at it over a lifetime of several years. Nick ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Sup2 (Not Sup2T) on a 6513 (NON-E)
Hi Nick, please see inline below: At 12:32 PM 9/9/2016 Friday, Nick Cutting asserted: Good afternoon Lords of the Layers, Anyone remember far back enough to answer two questions on the SUP2 supervisor on an original (NON-E) 6513 chassis? It seems the online cisco documentation doesn't go further back than the SUP 32 - it's very hard to find a datasheet for this. Mod Slot Ports Module-Type Model Sub Status --- - - --- --- 1 12 1000BaseX Supervisor WS-X6K-SUP2-2GE yes ok The layer 2 is CatOS and the layer 3 is IOS. A client has a couple of these switches I am trying to phase out, and was wondering two things, throughput related. The layer 2 switching engine trunks all traffic destined to be routed on the switch, up to an internal port on the SUP known as 15/1 -> then over to the layer 3 IOS to be routed on the SVI. No, not really. 15/1 is for traffic *destined* to the router, not traffic the router will L3 switch. That's done more or less exactly the same as in more current sups, ie, hardware-based FIB lookup. Spanning tree has a value of 4 for the cost of this link - and in spanningtree IEEE - this is 1 gig. Port Vlan Port-StateCost Prio Portfast Channel_id 15/1 11 forwarding4 32 enabled 0 Does this mean that anything that is routed - maxes out at 1 gig on this platform? Or is the spanning tree value here arbitrary - and the backplane faster than this? - I thought the backplane of the SUP 2 was 32 gig - is this for switching and routing - or just switching? Again, this is just the inband port. It's treated on the switch side as 'just another port in STP'. It looks more or less like a router on a stick - but with the very important distinction mentioned above, that transit traffic is h/w switched, not passed over this interface. Also when configuring etherchannel on the CatOS switching engine - it mentions a warning message about maximum speed being 1 gig - I imagine this is just talking about a single flow - and multiple flows will be load shared as normal? This is a totally different problem space, which as you mention in your follow up message is related to the 6148-GE-TX LC you are using. I don't think I'm allowed to talk about it in quite the same language that Gert does ;) but this card is heavily oversubscribed, and has this particular limitation because of the internal architecture, which is 8 x 1G connections to 8 x 8:1 oversubscribed port ASICs. So it is actually talking about the TOTAL port-channel bandwidth and not per flow or anything, but the limit is 1G *per port group* not per channel. Couple examples: 1. if you put 1 port in each port group in the channel then you could get 8G thruput theoretically, assuming no other ports in any of the port groups were passing traffic 2. if you put all 8 ports in one port group, you'd only get 1G of thruput Hope that helps, Tim Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Nick Cutting ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ Tim Stevenson, tstev...@cisco.com Routing & Switching CCIE #5561 Distinguished Engineer, Technical Marketing Data Center Switching Cisco - http://www.cisco.com +1(408)526-6759 ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Sup2 (Not Sup2T) on a 6513 (NON-E)
Hi, On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 08:23:47PM +, Nick Cutting wrote: > Thank you for the replies > Seems even a single 3560v1 is better than this supervisor. Yes. The Sup2 is something like 15 years old, and just not up to GigE stuff. (On the plus side, it's extremely robust and reliable - which is exactly why you're facing this question at all today. Just how much other IT gear is there that just chugs along happily for over 10 years, and just refuses to break?) We're just now getting rid of our last 6500/Sup1A CatOS boxes... (still serving customers on 100Mbit ports, and not showing any signs of old age - but *people* no longer remember CatOS, so it's time to close that chapter) gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Sup2 (Not Sup2T) on a 6513 (NON-E)
Thank you for the replies Seems even a single 3560v1 is better than this supervisor. -Original Message- From: Nick Cutting Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 4:00 PM To: Nick Cutting ; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: RE: Sup2 (Not Sup2T) on a 6513 (NON-E) Specifically - this message: Adding a WS-X6148-GE-TX port to a channel limits the channel's bandwidth to a maximum of 1Gig throughput. Per flow? Or in total -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Nick Cutting Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 3:32 PM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] Sup2 (Not Sup2T) on a 6513 (NON-E) Good afternoon Lords of the Layers, Anyone remember far back enough to answer two questions on the SUP2 supervisor on an original (NON-E) 6513 chassis? It seems the online cisco documentation doesn't go further back than the SUP 32 - it's very hard to find a datasheet for this. Mod Slot Ports Module-Type Model Sub Status --- - - --- --- 1 12 1000BaseX Supervisor WS-X6K-SUP2-2GE yes ok The layer 2 is CatOS and the layer 3 is IOS. A client has a couple of these switches I am trying to phase out, and was wondering two things, throughput related. The layer 2 switching engine trunks all traffic destined to be routed on the switch, up to an internal port on the SUP known as 15/1 -> then over to the layer 3 IOS to be routed on the SVI. Spanning tree has a value of 4 for the cost of this link - and in spanningtree IEEE - this is 1 gig. Port Vlan Port-StateCost Prio Portfast Channel_id 15/1 11 forwarding4 32 enabled 0 Does this mean that anything that is routed - maxes out at 1 gig on this platform? Or is the spanning tree value here arbitrary - and the backplane faster than this? - I thought the backplane of the SUP 2 was 32 gig - is this for switching and routing - or just switching? Also when configuring etherchannel on the CatOS switching engine - it mentions a warning message about maximum speed being 1 gig - I imagine this is just talking about a single flow - and multiple flows will be load shared as normal? Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Nick Cutting ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Sup2 (Not Sup2T) on a 6513 (NON-E)
Hi, On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 08:00:07PM +, Nick Cutting wrote: > Specifically - this message: > > Adding a WS-X6148-GE-TX port to a channel limits the channel's bandwidth to a > maximum of 1Gig throughput. > > Per flow? Or in total The 6148-GE-TX is (and has always been) a piece of shit. Among others, ISTR that 8 ports share a single 1G connection to the backplane ASIC... and if one of them blocks, the other 7 suffer high latencies... gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Sup2 (Not Sup2T) on a 6513 (NON-E)
Specifically - this message: Adding a WS-X6148-GE-TX port to a channel limits the channel's bandwidth to a maximum of 1Gig throughput. Per flow? Or in total -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Nick Cutting Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 3:32 PM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] Sup2 (Not Sup2T) on a 6513 (NON-E) Good afternoon Lords of the Layers, Anyone remember far back enough to answer two questions on the SUP2 supervisor on an original (NON-E) 6513 chassis? It seems the online cisco documentation doesn't go further back than the SUP 32 - it's very hard to find a datasheet for this. Mod Slot Ports Module-Type Model Sub Status --- - - --- --- 1 12 1000BaseX Supervisor WS-X6K-SUP2-2GE yes ok The layer 2 is CatOS and the layer 3 is IOS. A client has a couple of these switches I am trying to phase out, and was wondering two things, throughput related. The layer 2 switching engine trunks all traffic destined to be routed on the switch, up to an internal port on the SUP known as 15/1 -> then over to the layer 3 IOS to be routed on the SVI. Spanning tree has a value of 4 for the cost of this link - and in spanningtree IEEE - this is 1 gig. Port Vlan Port-StateCost Prio Portfast Channel_id 15/1 11 forwarding4 32 enabled 0 Does this mean that anything that is routed - maxes out at 1 gig on this platform? Or is the spanning tree value here arbitrary - and the backplane faster than this? - I thought the backplane of the SUP 2 was 32 gig - is this for switching and routing - or just switching? Also when configuring etherchannel on the CatOS switching engine - it mentions a warning message about maximum speed being 1 gig - I imagine this is just talking about a single flow - and multiple flows will be load shared as normal? Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Nick Cutting ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] Sup2 (Not Sup2T) on a 6513 (NON-E)
Good afternoon Lords of the Layers, Anyone remember far back enough to answer two questions on the SUP2 supervisor on an original (NON-E) 6513 chassis? It seems the online cisco documentation doesn't go further back than the SUP 32 - it's very hard to find a datasheet for this. Mod Slot Ports Module-Type Model Sub Status --- - - --- --- 1 12 1000BaseX Supervisor WS-X6K-SUP2-2GE yes ok The layer 2 is CatOS and the layer 3 is IOS. A client has a couple of these switches I am trying to phase out, and was wondering two things, throughput related. The layer 2 switching engine trunks all traffic destined to be routed on the switch, up to an internal port on the SUP known as 15/1 -> then over to the layer 3 IOS to be routed on the SVI. Spanning tree has a value of 4 for the cost of this link - and in spanningtree IEEE - this is 1 gig. Port Vlan Port-StateCost Prio Portfast Channel_id 15/1 11 forwarding4 32 enabled 0 Does this mean that anything that is routed - maxes out at 1 gig on this platform? Or is the spanning tree value here arbitrary - and the backplane faster than this? - I thought the backplane of the SUP 2 was 32 gig - is this for switching and routing - or just switching? Also when configuring etherchannel on the CatOS switching engine - it mentions a warning message about maximum speed being 1 gig - I imagine this is just talking about a single flow - and multiple flows will be load shared as normal? Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Nick Cutting ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
