Re: [c-nsp] 7600 Owners, failure stats wanted
On 1/21/12 8:28 AM, James Bensley wrote: Even if you've never had a failure I'd still like to know, thats just as important. I should also mention that at my previous job, we had an event one fine December afternoon. Three 6509s all fried simultaneously: 3x chassis, 6x sup, 4x linecards. DC power, and the boys were working on DC power when it happened. Interestingly, each 6509 had a 7507 underneath it, fed by the same fuse panel as the respective 6509; the 7507 emerged unscathed. To this day, the facilities crew won't accept that it was a power event, even when I point out the phantom -28V that appears on the distribution panel when the inbound and outbound circuit breakers are all off. :) pt ___ 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] 7600 Owners, failure stats wanted
Even if you've never had a failure I'd still like to know, thats just as important. We have a mix of 6500/7600, all SUP720 (some VSS). All chassis have dual SUP's (probably ~240 or so chassis) and haven't had a bad SUP in quite a long time. (4 years maybe) Our 7609's (non -S) are used to dual-home WAN devices as aggregation blocks out of one facility. We have had a few power supplies go bad that I can remember, but not very many. I believe the thing that fails the most for us are the X2 modules for 10g ports. I do remember tossing quite a few in the trash over the last few years after migration, consolidation, etc. The SFP+ optics seem to be a lot better in that department. - max On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 8:28 AM, James Bensley jwbens...@gmail.com wrote: Many of you are mentioning dual-homed customers, which of course is always an option. What I meant though is that it's very rare to find a set up where every single customer is dual-homed. So, in a typical deployment, do your line cards fail long before a SUP/RSP, or vice versa? For those that have dual SUPs/RSPs, has the second one been required *that* often? Even if you've never had a failure I'd still like to know, thats just as important. Many thanks for all your input so far guys. ___ 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] 7600 Owners, failure stats wanted
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 1:19 PM, James Bensley jwbens...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, I'm now lab'ing up a 7609-R for deployment in the near future. It has a single RSP720-3CXL-GE in it. What I want to know is, all of you that have or do run 7600's, what are your real world failure rates of the RSP modules? I can have dual RSPs but how likely are they too fail? I want to know from 7600's owners/managers out there, how many SUPs or RSPs have you had fail on you (or not if non have failed on you), and how long were they in service before they failed (or how long were they in service without failing, if that is the case for you)? Are they more likely to fail the other line cards? It doesn't seem very common practice to have to of every card in the chassis and provide customers with a port on two switching modules for example, so why dual RSPs? Are they *that* much more likely to fail? Thanks for your time, -- James. http://www.jamesbensley.co.cc/ ___ 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/ We have some 7609 doing broadband aggregation. All fitted with single RSP in chassis but with inter chassis redundancy. As far as I can remember, we haven't had any hardware failures with the RSP720-3CXL units in the past 3-4 years. The software on the other hand has been buggy. I'd upgrade to at least 12.2(33)SRE4 if you plan on deploying. Realistically, more complexity/features usually lead to unknown/known bugs popping up all over the place. In the end, the justification for doing intra, inter chassis redundancy or a combination depends on what you're going to use the setup for and what SLA's you have with your customers. -K ___ 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] 7600 Owners, failure stats wanted
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 06:19, James Bensleyjwbens...@gmail.com wrote: I can have dual RSPs but how likely are they too fail? I want to know from 7600's owners/managers out there, how many SUPs or RSPs have you had fail on you (or not if non have failed on you), and how long were they in service before they failed (or how long were they in service without failing, if that is the case for you)? Are they more likely to fail the other line cards? It doesn't seem very common practice to have to of every card in the chassis and provide customers with a port on two switching modules for example, so why dual RSPs? Are they *that* much more likely to fail? In a prior job in the SP world, our model was a hybrid: Router 1 got dual routing processors (RSP, SUP, GRP, whatever), Router 2 got single RP. Customers who cared would pay for two links and gain box-level redundancy, customers who didn't would be provisioned on router1 and at least have controller-level redundancy. If router1 would fill, the plan was to give router2 dual RP and deploy router3, though now I'm thinking it'd be smarter to deploy router3 with dual RP and leave router2 for just the customers with twinned links. Our objective was to make a reasonable effort to keep the customers online, and if things went bump in the night that we'd wake up the fewest personnel possible. It wasn't necessarily that an RP would die, but for some platforms the RP would crash and reboot. We'd rather our customers go through an RP switchover than a hard-down router reboot. We didn't maintain two of everything - just a regional spare. We gave up on dual-RSP 7507s for T1 aggregation and settled on the 7206s; the price/volume point didn't make sense to choose a larger dual-RP platform for us. We were headed towards GSR for higher-speed TDM access, and used the above model on 6509s for customer Ethernet access. pt ___ 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] 7600 Owners, failure stats wanted
Hi, On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 07:29:26PM -0500, Jon Lewis wrote: We do this with single supervisors, and a full redundant identically configured chassis. Customer's who care get a link to each chassis. Same here. Not that much hardware outage over the last years (one Sup720-10G arrived DOA, one Sup32 went bad, two or three 61xx line cards) - but there's IOS upgrades, and sometimes bad IOS versions, so having separate chassis for redundancy (with different IOS versions) is very useful. (... and this is reason #1 why we are not using VSS) 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 pgpxtEmEIbTkA.pgp 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] 7600 Owners, failure stats wanted
Many of you are mentioning dual-homed customers, which of course is always an option. What I meant though is that it's very rare to find a set up where every single customer is dual-homed. So, in a typical deployment, do your line cards fail long before a SUP/RSP, or vice versa? For those that have dual SUPs/RSPs, has the second one been required *that* often? Even if you've never had a failure I'd still like to know, thats just as important. Many thanks for all your input so far guys. ___ 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] 7600 Owners, failure stats wanted
On 1/21/12 8:28 AM, James Bensley wrote: Many of you are mentioning dual-homed customers, which of course is always an option. What I meant though is that it's very rare to find a set up where every single customer is dual-homed. So, in a typical deployment, do your line cards fail long before a SUP/RSP, or vice versa? For those that have dual SUPs/RSPs, has the second one been required *that* often? I've seen a block of ports on an older 10/100 linecard drop; recovery came at next reboot. I've seen a 10/100 card die, and force a reload as it went down. Sup720s have been good to me. I think I've seen 1 or 2 backup Sups hiccup but come back to life. More recently as a consultant, a customer's DC is showing one completely dead Sup (which forced an SSO event), one backup Sup that reloaded; out of ten units. pt ___ 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] 7600 Owners, failure stats wanted
On Friday, January 20, 2012 08:19:19 PM James Bensley wrote: Are they more likely to fail the other line cards? It doesn't seem very common practice to have to of every card in the chassis and provide customers with a port on two switching modules for example, so why dual RSPs? Are they *that* much more likely to fail? We have 6500's running SUP720's on them. We use these for pure core switching in our large PoP's. Each core switch is running a single SUP720. It's been like this for nearly 5 years now. We didn't think having dual RP's in the core switches would be worthwhile when we have two core switches in the first place, and since all they're doing is Ethernet switching - no routing. That said, all routers that support dual control planes get them outfitted by default. Our customers, these days, connect to us in the Access, as we're extending MPLS all the way into there, using ME3600X's at this time. These don't provide box-level control plane redundancy, so customers that need some assurance have to buy a 2nd link to another box in another ring. Before the ME3600X's, high capacity customers that needed LACP would be thrown into large boxes like the MX-series. This was mainly because LACP or the need for 10Gbps limits your options re: what boxes you can use for edge termination, while staying relatively cost-effective. In these cases, customer member links are terminated on different line cards in the same chassis (until we deploy MC-LAG, of course). Hope this helps. Cheers, Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ 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] 7600 Owners, failure stats wanted
Hi All, I'm now lab'ing up a 7609-R for deployment in the near future. It has a single RSP720-3CXL-GE in it. What I want to know is, all of you that have or do run 7600's, what are your real world failure rates of the RSP modules? I can have dual RSPs but how likely are they too fail? I want to know from 7600's owners/managers out there, how many SUPs or RSPs have you had fail on you (or not if non have failed on you), and how long were they in service before they failed (or how long were they in service without failing, if that is the case for you)? Are they more likely to fail the other line cards? It doesn't seem very common practice to have to of every card in the chassis and provide customers with a port on two switching modules for example, so why dual RSPs? Are they *that* much more likely to fail? Thanks for your time, -- James. http://www.jamesbensley.co.cc/ ___ 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] 7600 Owners, failure stats wanted
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 06:19, James Bensley jwbens...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, I'm now lab'ing up a 7609-R for deployment in the near future. It has a single RSP720-3CXL-GE in it. What I want to know is, all of you that have or do run 7600's, what are your real world failure rates of the RSP modules? I can have dual RSPs but how likely are they too fail? I want to know from 7600's owners/managers out there, how many SUPs or RSPs have you had fail on you (or not if non have failed on you), and how long were they in service before they failed (or how long were they in service without failing, if that is the case for you)? Are they more likely to fail the other line cards? It doesn't seem very common practice to have to of every card in the chassis and provide customers with a port on two switching modules for example, so why dual RSPs? Are they *that* much more likely to fail? You had me until this line. Discrete dual ports is *very* common when people desire HA and it isn't a multihoming situation. Thanks for your time, -- James. http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ -Blake ___ 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] 7600 Owners, failure stats wanted
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012, Blake Dunlap wrote: Are they more likely to fail the other line cards? It doesn't seem very common practice to have to of every card in the chassis and provide customers with a port on two switching modules for example, so why dual RSPs? Are they *that* much more likely to fail? You had me until this line. Discrete dual ports is *very* common when people desire HA and it isn't a multihoming situation. We do this with single supervisors, and a full redundant identically configured chassis. Customer's who care get a link to each chassis. -- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_ ___ 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/
