Hi Saku,
> So 80% of time, work needed to compete for access to the CPU.
Yes. I hesitated because when I compare the ping results and vFP CPU
utilization plus microkernel threads CPU usage during the route churn
and without the route churn, then while CPU utilization clearly
increased, it did
Hello,
I have an MX240 running 15.1R6.7. I am looking to monitor a few
power supply related items and I observe that juniper has an snmp mib
related to power - "JUNIPER-POWER-SUPPLY-UNIT-MIB". It looks to
conveniently group all the stuff I care about and so I have tried to
poll this mib and
❦ 25 avril 2019 09:31 +01, :
> I haven't tried MC-LAG, but I used standard LAG (with LACP).
> The problem I faced was that the standard Linux bridges (usually used to
> simulate virtual p2p links between vMX-es won't forward BPDUs including LACP
> (and I did not find a way to hack around at that
> omar sahnoun
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 8:55 AM
>
> Hello all,
>
> I tried to mount a MC-LAG between two VMXs (using EVE-NG). I note that
> the lacp protocol is not operational.
> I did some research (including on this forum). The explanations I find are
a
> little complicated. That's
hey,
Please let me know if anything was unclear or if someone has other
ideas or theories.
Been following this thread and do not have anything to contribute at
this point but wanted to say I (and I hope many others) appreciate this
type of proper debugging given the tools we have available
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 00:19, Martin T wrote:
> in PFE) could indeed be affected. On the other hand, the overall LC
> CPU usage according to "sh linux cpu usage" did not exceed 80% even
> during the route churn, but I actually do not know what exactly this
> utilization means..
Like ethernet,
6 matches
Mail list logo
