Cisco 7206 VXR NPG2

Unanswered Question
Sep 23rd, 2009

Hi,


we are using the cisco 7206 vxr NPG2 router as our core router

in this we are getting high CPU utlization


i have attached the sh proc cpu and interface utlization but as per the router specfication it as to handle 2 million packets per seconds but what our traffic is around 1 lakh packet per seconds which is around 10 % of packet handling but its show 67 %


what could be the reason is it a hardware issue







Attachment: 
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Loading.
Paolo Bevilacqua Wed, 09/23/2009 - 04:20

Hi, the 2 Mpps mark is is not a commitment, rater an optimistic marketing promise.


Your router CPU usage is OK for the traffic it's currently handling.


If you want true gigabit performances, get a L3 switch not a CPU based router.

vinoth.kumar Wed, 09/23/2009 - 06:40

Thanks for your reply


If we are planning for upgrading the router which series router would give double the performance in terms of packet handling since in our case our traffic can increase and we need 5 to 6 Gigabit ethernet port


can any one suggest us which could be best


and also can i buy SUP-720 switch processor and install on the 7206 VXR chasis whether it will work


Paolo Bevilacqua Wed, 09/23/2009 - 07:57

There are many choices, please contact your local cisco office for design recommendations.


sup-720 can be used only on 6500 and 7600 chassis.


Please remember to rate useful posts with the scrollbox below.



Joseph W. Doherty Wed, 09/23/2009 - 09:35

Next step up in routing performance from a NPE-G2 would be a 7304 with NSE-150, then the ASR series. Depending on your interface and feature needs a L3 switch (as also suggesting by Paolo) might be suitable (especially one of the Metro variants).


7300

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps352/index.html

ASR

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps9343/index.html

Switches (especially those under "Metro Ethernet Switches")

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/index.html

Jerry Ye Wed, 09/23/2009 - 09:42

SUP720 cannot be installed on the 7200 series routers. You need the Catalyst 6500 or the 7600 series for SUP720.


You will have to decide what type of features you would like to run. The 7600 will give you more SP features along with some new BGP features. C6500 is mostly for the Enterprise environment. However, it can be used as the WAN router.


For the 1GE port, if you want to use QoS to shape traffic, you will need to use the SIP/SPA, regular LAN line cards don't support advanced MQC shaping.


HTH,

jerry

nadeem-akhtar Wed, 09/23/2009 - 10:14

Also look at your QOS and ACL configuration as this consumes most cpu utilization. See if you can reduce that configuration. If you can not, ASR may be a good option in your case as it does hardware switching.

vinoth.kumar Wed, 09/23/2009 - 10:19

Hi,


As per our requirement we need 5 to 6 Gigabit ethernet port with the Double the packet handling performance of NPG2 in terms of CPU Processor


Main function of our Core router is packet handling between the interface and BGP session to the ISP


so can any one suggest us which platform to proceed and IOS

Joseph W. Doherty Wed, 09/23/2009 - 11:50

"so can any one suggest us which platform"


NPE-G2 is rated at 2 Mpps, the NSE-150 (PXF) at 3.5 Mpps, the ASR ESP-5 at about 4 Mpps. Believe both the latter two platforms will support 5 or 6 gig Ethernet ports. The ASR can also be used with an ESP-10 or ESP-20 which provides about 8 and 10.4 Mpps, respectively.


See my prior post for reference links on both platforms.

Paolo Bevilacqua Wed, 09/23/2009 - 11:56

the NSE-150 (PXF) at 3.5 Mpps


I've worked with PXF-based products at cisco. If anybody can demosntrate that an NSE-150 can sustain just 2 Mpps with features offloaded to FXS without crashing, I'll pay beverages to anybody in the forum with at least one star.


PXF is gone forever, thanks heaven.

Joseph W. Doherty Wed, 09/23/2009 - 12:21

Well, I'm not one to guarantee any Cisco product, and would note NSE-100 or -150 are "different", however have experience with a NSE-100 running side by side with a NPE-G1 as Enterprise Internet routers for couple of years now, both processing about the same load, both with full Internet tables from multiple (usually two) ISPs. Have not had any issues with the NSE-100, although neither router normally needs to support a sustained 2 Mpps. Of the two, the NSE-100 shows a slighty lower maximum CPU but a much, much lower average CPU load.


NSE-100

5556555555555665655555555565555555555666666555555655555556565555555555

6533473873626337072237573303338226356022402422457334444213343692512513

100

90

80

70

60 ** * * ** * ****** *** * * * ******** *** * * ** * *

50 **********************************************************************

40 **********************************************************************

30 **********************************************************************

20 **********************************************************************

10 **********************************************************************

0....5....1....1....2....2....3....3....4....4....5....5....6....6....7.

0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0

CPU% per hour (last 72 hours)

* = maximum CPU% # = average CPU%


NPE-G1

887677654444445555656666776776654434433445555576776777644344333344444444

236775661967194853144738044418511172436997221809108631190901281464541231

100

90

80 *** ** *

70 ******* * *** **** ********

60 ******** ** * *********** * **********

50 ###*##** *** **********#*#*#**** ***************** * *

40 #######***************#########****** ********########****** * ********

30 ########********###############***********#############*****************

20 ##########**#####################******#################****************

10 ########################################################################

0....5....1....1....2....2....3....3....4....4....5....5....6....6....7..

0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0

CPU% per hour (last 72 hours)

* = maximum CPU% # = average CPU%


Paolo Bevilacqua Wed, 09/23/2009 - 13:55

Interesting. My bias come from the nse for the 7200, that one you really want to avoid.


Anyway, in this world of today one $1,000 L3 switch does the work of a $100,000 router of few years ago, so in that direction one has to look.


vinoth.kumar Fri, 10/09/2009 - 07:39

Hi,


OK, we planned to upgrade the 7206 NPEg2 router with the (Supervisor Engine 2)


Can 7206VXR NPEg1 and NPEg2 chassis support this features


Most of our termination is Gig Ethernet and also we need atleast 8 port Gig ethernet and need to Support HSRP


how i can achieve this we have spare SUP2 with us


can i use that instead of 7206 VXR engine



Paolo Bevilacqua Fri, 10/09/2009 - 07:59

Hi, you should review the Cisco products before planning.


The 7200 router can only use NPE.


The supervisor engine 2 that you have cannot be used.

vinoth.kumar Fri, 10/09/2009 - 08:12

Thanks


But which harware i can use replacing the NPEg2 in terms of Performance ,throughput and no of Gig Ports


and need to support BGP and OSPF


kindly suggets me

Paolo Bevilacqua Fri, 10/09/2009 - 09:42

If you need full routing, a 7600 with sup 720.


Else even 3560, 3750 do that. But they are not true router.


You should contact yuor local cisco office and they will teach the product offer.

Actions

This Discussion