On (2013-04-10 00:01 +0200), Benny Amorsen wrote:
> Yes, you can in theory cause microbursting of UDP if you want. I am just
> not sure which tool I would use to do that. Typical UDP tests like iperf
> attempt to do perfect timing of packets so bursts are avoided, and they
> seem to do a fairly go
Yes this is what has happened to us... twice in two days.
Only change on the switch was setting up a port mirror... This would probably
consume a bit more memory which may have triggered the crash.
I have already organised the RMA, was just wondering about the mirroring.
Luca
-Original Mes
Hi Luca,
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Luca Salvatore wrote:
>
[...]
> I have an EX4200 10.4r5.5, a few hours after turning on port mirroring the
> switch crashed. It threw some memory parity errors which JTAC tells me means
> the switch is faulty and should be replaced.
>
> The switch in
Yep - listen to JTAC.
The parity error is definitely a sign that the memory on your switch is flakey
- I had an EX4200 completely lock-up and drop out of a VC after 6 months of
flawless operation. Rebooted it and it came good, 24 hours later it dropped
right back out again with the parity erro
Wondering if anyone has seen any issues with EX switches running port mirroring
- specifically seeing the switch generate a 'parity error' and crashing?
I have an EX4200 10.4r5.5, a few hours after turning on port mirroring the
switch crashed. It threw some memory parity errors which JTAC tells
I think you'll need at least an M20 for your 10 GigE requirement as well as
SDH.
If you can somehow get a different transit circuit than your SDH one, an
MX5 would be a much closer (throughput-wise) and better bang-for-your-buck
replacement for a 7206 than an M-series.
J-series with a T1 module co
hello,
I need to change a CISCO 7206 router that computer I recommend one of the
requirements is that you have two 10G interfacez two interfacez 1G and STM1
interface to connect with the ISP was thinking M10i Router but I do not
support 10g interface.
thank you very much for your help.
__
On 4/9/13 3:41 PM, Dave Peters - Terabit Systems wrote:
Can't seem to find a specific ceiling on this. Anyone know the max ARP entries
on an MX240?
There isn't one, it's going to depend on the amount of memory used for
the rest of the fib. I imagine that with 2 million or so l2 next hops
the
Can't seem to find a specific ceiling on this. Anyone know the max ARP entries
on an MX240?
Thanks in advance.
--Dave Peters
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Saku Ytti writes:
> Obviously microbursts can (in both TCP or UDP) scenario happen without any
> background traffic. Consider you're connected to 1GE port, testing another
> host in 100M port, if you limit your rate to 100M, you still causes the
> 100M port to congest, as incoming rate is always
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 11:48:36AM -0700, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 4/9/13 11:15 AM, Tom Storey wrote:
> >Hey all.
> >
> >A colleague of mine tells me that, if you have a single stackable switch
> >(not in a stack obviously) and do not loop the two stacking ports on the
> >back using the stacking ca
On 4/9/13 11:15 AM, Tom Storey wrote:
Hey all.
A colleague of mine tells me that, if you have a single stackable switch
(not in a stack obviously) and do not loop the two stacking ports on the
back using the stacking cable that comes in the box, then you reduce the
effective throughput of the sw
Hey all.
A colleague of mine tells me that, if you have a single stackable switch
(not in a stack obviously) and do not loop the two stacking ports on the
back using the stacking cable that comes in the box, then you reduce the
effective throughput of the switch.
Specifically I am talking about a
On (2013-04-09 15:03 +0200), Benny Amorsen wrote:
> There will only be packet loss if you test while there is background
> traffic on the link. If the only load is a perfect stream of UDP
> packets, the buffers will not fill and no packets will be dropped.
This is completely L4 agnostic though, T
Saku Ytti writes:
> Microbursts will drop UDP has well, you'll experience this as packet loss
> just the same, so you want to find value which has 0 packet loss. This same
> number will indicate when TCP will start dropping (and reducing
> window-size)
There will only be packet loss if you test
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/switching/ex-series/ex9200/#specifications
IPv4 Unicast / Multicast Routes
256,000
IPv6 Unicast / Multicast Routes
256,000
clearly artificially limited to create differentiation
On 9 April 2013 15:15, Robert Hass wrote:
> Hi
> What is FIB size at
Hi
What is FIB size at latest EX9200 switches ? I cannot find it out from
datasheet.
Rob
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
On (2013-04-08 23:29 +0200), Benny Amorsen wrote:
> UDP tests can be too generous on the network. A stream of perfectly
> spaced UDP packets will not show problems with microbursts. Almost all
> bulk transfer protocols are TCP, so it is important to test with TCP.
Microbursts will drop UDP has we
18 matches
Mail list logo
