Hey, > On Jan 22, 2019, at 2:42 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Maybe any of the show commands in the below, if they show any drops? > https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB26519&cat=FIREWALL&actp=LIST > > <https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB26519&cat=FIREWALL&actp=LIST>
Nope. It’s all clean. > I appreciate you're just concerned with packet count at the moment, but what > is interesting is that if you change the rate at which you blast the packet > at the box (bigger packets = slower PPS rate) the counters align all of a > sudden. > That sort of indicates that for the 64B stream the packets are dropped by the > platform -do you get the confirmation on the RX end of the tester about the > missing packets? Not sure if this is about misaligned counters or actually > about dropped packets? The Rx tester shows 76M packets, so it’s only seeing what et-0/0/2 says it’s seeing. > How I read your test is that presumably this is 40G in and 40G out the same > PFE (back to back packets @ 64B or 100B packets) It’s 100G in/out. > So we should just consider single PFE performance but still the resulting PPS > rate is noooowhere near the theoretical PPS budget. > How are the PFEs on 204 linked together (any sacrifices in the PFE BW/PPS > budget to account for the fabric)? On MPC7E all 4 PFEs would be connected via > fabric. > So nothing really adds up here... shouldn't be happening -not at these rates > > adam > > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
