HhjhhuHUuUuuror On Aug 19, 2012 12:01 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >om m w s
W > Send cisco-nsp mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cisco-nsp digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: 3550-12 interrupts out of control, possibly hardware? > (Andy Dills) > 2. Re: ASR9K limitations (tim) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 12:31:12 -0400 (EDT) > From: Andy Dills <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 3550-12 interrupts out of control, possibly > hardware? > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > Just to follow up on this on the off chance somebody runs into this in the > future...a reload of the switch fixed the issue, and the traffic for the > L3 port stopped hitting vlan 1. > > Andy > > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2012, Andy Dills wrote: > > > > > Thanks, I appreciate those suggestions. I verified both the SDM and VTP > > configs are identical. > > > > Did you see my followup from earlier? I identified that for some reason > > unknown to me, the traffic was hitting the vlan1 interface before exiting > > via the L3 interface facing that network, which was forcing all of the > > traffic to get process switched. I have no idea why, though, and would > > love suggestions. > > > > My best guess is that because they configured the port for L3 mode before > > they enabled ip routing on the failover 3550-12, something didn't happen > > right and perhaps a reload would have fixed it. I do know that in the past > > when I have done "ip routing" on a live 3550, it goes unresponsive for > > about 10-15 seconds, so I have to assume a lot goes on behind the scenes. > > And I do know from the transcript of their changes that they configured > > the port for L3 mode before realizing ip routing had never been enabled on > > that switch. Given the "illogical" (in quotes because perhaps there > > is some logic that is escaping me) nature of the behavior observed, I have > > to assume it was some sort of quirk of bug like this. For what it's worth, > > they're both running c3550-ipservices-mz.122-44.SE6. > > > > Thanks, > > Andy > > > > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, T?th Andr?s wrote: > > > > > Hi Andy, > > > > > > One idea is different SDM templates being used. The SDM template is > > > not showing up in running-config, and changing it requires a reload as > > > well. I would compare them with 'sh sdm prefer' command. You might be > > > running out of IPv4 routes, which causes rest of routes to be applied > > > in software, so packets are software switched by the CPU which can > > > cause high utilization. > > > > > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps646/products_tech_note09186a0080094bc6.shtml > > > > > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst3550/software/release/12.2_44_se/configuration/guide/swadmin.html#wp1235565 > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Andras > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Andy Dills <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I've got a customer with a weird situation. > > > > > > > > They have a pretty straightforward setup, two 7200s fronting two cisco > > > > 3550-12s, distributing to a series of 48 port 3550s. It's a bit dated, but > > > > works very well for their needs. > > > > > > > > They have one special network attached to (only) one of the copper gige > > > > ports on (one of) the 3550-12s which gets a decent amount of traffic > > > > (~100mbps or so). It's a layer 3 connection. > > > > > > > > Well, one of their 3550-12s died, taking down that network. They moved the > > > > IP configuration of the port and moved the cable immediately, restoring > > > > service, and racked/configured a replacement switch, but left that network > > > > on the second 3550-12, as it seemed fine. > > > > > > > > However, once it began to come under load this morning, the CPU pegged > > > > (80-99%, normally at 1-2%), causing packet drops and latency. > > > > > > > > At that point I got involved, and for the life of me I can't figure out > > > > why this happened. Clearly it's interrupts, as there were no processes in > > > > the "sh proc cpu" that had more than 1% of CPU. However, cef was working > > > > fine, everything looked normal in terms of the traditional interrupt-based > > > > troubleshooting. > > > > > > > > So, after scratching our heads for a bit, I had them move the connection > > > > back to the original, newly-replaced switch. Note that these switches are > > > > configured 100% identically with the exception of IP address and hostname. > > > > Same IOS versions. I mean literally, if you diff the two in rancid, those > > > > are the only config changes. > > > > > > > > Zero problems from the point they moved the connection off of the switch > > > > in question, both switches now have 1-2% CPU and things are humming along > > > > fine. > > > > > > > > So, my question is: What could be the possible causes of this? Could this > > > > be a symptom of failing hardware, perhaps some bad memory requiring > > > > constant CPU corrections? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > --- > > > > Andy Dills > > > > Xecunet, Inc. > > > > www.xecu.net > > > > 301-682-9972 > > > > --- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > > > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > > > > > > --- > > Andy Dills > > Xecunet, Inc. > > www.xecu.net > > 301-682-9972 > > --- > > --- > Andy Dills > Xecunet, Inc. > www.xecu.net > 301-682-9972 > --- > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 16:21:33 +0200 > From: tim <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR9K limitations > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 08/17/2012 02:41 PM, Chris Griffin wrote: > > Fix is specifically in : > > > > Reload SMU, SMU Pack1 for ASR9k NP, PRM and DRV fixes, Mandatory SMU > > asr9k-p-4.2.1.CSCua76130.tar > > > > But yes, that tarball should have it as well. > > Thanks! That worked for me. > > Cheers, > Tim > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list > [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > > End of cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 117, Issue 39 > ****************************************** _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
