|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 22:46:30 -0600 From: matthew zeier <matthew@thirdcoast.net> To: Christofer Hoff <hoff@nodewarrior.net> Cc: nanog@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <19981030213401.AAA16798@icarus.nodewarrior.net@beeblebrox>; from Christofer Hoff on Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 01:35:02PM -0800 On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 01:35:02PM -0800, Christofer Hoff wrote: > Matthew: > > What version of code are you running in your 4000 -- I see no such latency > issues nor packet drop and we regularly push 20+ Mb through our boxes... > sits between a Cisco 75xx and Catalyst 5000 Switch. PacketShaper v3.1.3g14 1998-09-15. > Are you using the same cable/cables when you place the packetshaper > in the network vs. when it is out? Also, have you looked at the CLI for > the NIC stats? Yeah, same cables. I believe the issues was in the number of sessions the box was handling, not the amount of bandwidth. I believe we were looking at "mib tcp" - some of the values we were seeing were nearing the limits of the box. One of the websites that we host, but don't shape, typically gets 200-300 hits per second during peak. Which, of course, has a direct impact on bandwidth. The technical explaination that made the most sense to me was the increase in hits per second meant an increase is hosts the p4k was managing. I can track down my emails and talk to you offline about this, if you're interested. - mz -- matthew zeier - "Chance is irrelevant - we will succeed." - 7 of 9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |