Here is a rough spreadsheet with the numbers we had done. It wasn't anything fancy and it was pure GE to GE with no features on the box at all.
It illustrates what I was explaining about the CPU to load comparison with the G1. Hope this helps. Rodney On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 08:41:42AM -0400, Rodney Dunn wrote: > Just an fyi. Due to some architectural differences you can't > really compare the CPU numbers between previous NPE's to the G2. > > While the graph of CPU vs. pps goes up pretty closely inline with > what a G1 will do the G2 will forward close to double the G1 in > packets per second approaching the no drop rate (NDR) the G2 can handle. > > We (TAC) have had multiple cases lately where customers upgrade to a > G2 and don't see their CPU drop considerably and they think the box > isn't as good as we said it is. That isn't true because when you go > back and evaluate the NDR's side by side the G2 is much faster. > > I was personally involved in those NDR test comparison between the > G1 and G2 and know it's true. > > Rodney > > > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 09:40:19AM +0200, Brian Turnbow wrote: > > I recently did an upgrade from npe-400 to G1 on a router with 1600pppoa > > users that pumps 50Mbs(about 40% of that Voip traffic) > > The 400 was running at 75% the G1 dropped it to 35% > > I would expect the G2 to do even better. > > > > Brian > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk > > Sent: mercoled? 18 aprile 2007 3.39 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 7200 / NPE-G2 > > > > That raises a good question...if an NPE-400 with 2000 PPPoA and 35 PPPoE > > operates at 44% today, what would a G2 bring that down to? > > > > Frank > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clayton Zekelman > > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:08 PM > > To: ; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 7200 / NPE-G2 > > > > > > > > I'm running one with Version 12.4(4)XD4. So far 15 weeks of uptime, no > > issues with 924 L2TP, and 762 PPPoE sessions - 24% CPU Utilization. > > > > Come to think of it, I would have thought I'd be seeing a bit better > > performance. > > > > > > ----- Original Message --------------- > > > > Subject: [c-nsp] 7200 / NPE-G2 > > From: " " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:27:02 -0400 > > To: [email protected] > > > > >Does anyone have experience/feedback that they're willing to share on > > >the moderately new G2 engine ? I suspect that software is more of a > > >wild card than the hardware itself. Does anyone have an opinion on > > >whether one is better off with 12.4.11T or 12.2SB ? > > >_______________________________________________ > > >cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > >https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > > >archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
