Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements
Webcast-Catalyst9k

Buffer Tuning Cisco 2610XM Router

We use a Cisco 2610XM router and would like to eliminate the buffer failures in the public buffer pool. Can anyone help me out how to fine tune this?

Buffer elements:

997 in free list (500 max allowed)

257569601 hits, 0 misses, 500 created

Public buffer pools:

Small buffers, 104 bytes (total 50, permanent 50, peak 83 @ 2d04h):

45 in free list (20 min, 150 max allowed)

47060333 hits, 89 misses, 137 trims, 137 created

0 failures (0 no memory)

Middle buffers, 600 bytes (total 25, permanent 25, peak 78 @ 2d04h):

22 in free list (10 min, 150 max allowed)

13317461 hits, 613 misses, 107 trims, 107 created

83 failures (0 no memory)

Big buffers, 1536 bytes (total 50, permanent 50, peak 76 @ 2d04h):

49 in free list (5 min, 150 max allowed)

17448540 hits, 8217 misses, 26 trims, 26 created

7972 failures (0 no memory)

VeryBig buffers, 4520 bytes (total 10, permanent 10, peak 12 @ 2d04h):

10 in free list (0 min, 20 max allowed)

48 hits, 7924 misses, 2 trims, 2 created

7924 failures (0 no memory)

Large buffers, 5024 bytes (total 1, permanent 0, peak 4 @ 2d04h):

1 in free list (0 min, 10 max allowed)

6 hits, 7918 misses, 22 trims, 23 created

7918 failures (0 no memory)

Huge buffers, 18024 bytes (total 1, permanent 0, peak 2 @ 2d04h):

1 in free list (0 min, 4 max allowed)

4 hits, 7914 misses, 20 trims, 21 created

7914 failures (0 no memory)

Interface buffer pools:

CD2430 I/O buffers, 1536 bytes (total 0, permanent 0):

0 in free list (0 min, 0 max allowed)

0 hits, 0 fallbacks

Header pools:

Header buffers, 0 bytes (total 510, permanent 128, peak 510 @ 7w0d):

382 in free list (10 min, 512 max allowed)

4367 hits, 247 misses, 0 trims, 382 created

9 failures (0 no memory)

128 max cache size, 128 in cache

54534511 hits in cache, 4251 misses in cache

Particle Clones:

1024 clones, 0 hits, 0 misses

Public particle pools:

F/S buffers, 256 bytes (total 384, permanent 384):

128 in free list (128 min, 1024 max allowed)

256 hits, 0 misses, 0 trims, 0 created

0 failures (0 no memory)

256 max cache size, 256 in cache

0 hits in cache, 0 misses in cache

Normal buffers, 1548 bytes (total 512, permanent 512):

384 in free list (128 min, 1024 max allowed)

16524 hits, 80 misses, 118 trims, 118 created

0 failures (0 no memory)

128 max cache size, 128 in cache

0 hits in cache, 0 misses in cache

Private particle pools:

FastEthernet0/0 buffers, 1548 bytes (total 192, permanent 192):

0 in free list (0 min, 192 max allowed)

192 hits, 0 fallbacks

192 max cache size, 128 in cache

464870504 hits in cache, 16232 misses in cache

Serial0/0 buffers, 1548 bytes (total 48, permanent 48):

0 in free list (0 min, 48 max allowed)

48 hits, 0 fallbacks

48 max cache size, 24 in cache

570887849 hits in cache, 76 misses in cache

3 REPLIES
Super Bronze

Re: Buffer Tuning Cisco 2610XM Router

If you're running a recent IOS, you might try buffers tune automatic. Otherwise, this tech note document, http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps133/products_tech_note09186a00800a7b80.shtml, should help you with manual tuning.

Re: Buffer Tuning Cisco 2610XM Router

thanks joseph for the link, but i was specifically concern tuning LARGE and HUGE buffersand wanted to increase them. on the link it says:

*permanent: take the number of total buffers in a pool and add about 20%.

*min-free: set min-free to about 20-30% of the permanent number of allocated buffers in the pool.

*max-free: set max-free to something greater than the sum of permanents and minimums.

my question is how am i going to compute/configure for these if total is 1 and permanent is 0?

Super Bronze

Re: Buffer Tuning Cisco 2610XM Router

Round up. I.e. starting with zero or one, add 1. Since peak was 4 and 2, you also could try increasing to up peak for both. Monitor results.

If you're not tight on free RAM, it's easier to be generous when increasing buffer values. I suspect initial default values probably more tied to when router RAM was more restricted, and/or large MTU (e.g. jumbo Ethernet) wasn't possible or as common.

411
Views
0
Helpful
3
Replies
CreatePlease to create content