On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Gert Doering <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 04:12:59PM +0000, Mackinnon, Ian wrote: >> > Well, in theory it should at least have the benefit of proper memory >> > protection between processes, and thus, less likely to crash the whole >> > box if a process does stupid things. >> > >> Interesting, so given the email earlier today by somebody experiencing >> BGP problems at a well known IX with lots of sessions where the other >> end is shut down, would this have still been an issue? > > I'm not really sure what is happening there - but I doubt that modular > would help much with "a process is burning CPU needlessly". > >> It's been a while since I looked at modular, but is there not a large >> "IOS" process that is most things in one place anyway? > > I'm not exactly sure how it works. There's different kinds of processes, > some of them having "sub-processes". > > The one that has BGP in it is "iprouting.iosproc". All the "old IOS stuff" > seems to be "ios-base".
We've been running 12.2SX Modular IOS on a set of SUP720s for over a year. It hasn't done us any good. Still suffer from memory/cpu issues. Modular will burn at least an extra 10% cpu, and won't give any observable benefits. With the removal of install/patching in SXI3, we have decided to move back to monolithic. Cisco doesn't appear to have the engineering resources and/or will-power to move IOS into the 20th Century (pre-emptive multitasking with memory and process containment.) It is more beneficial for them to sell you new products with "better" versions of IOS. Tim:> _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
