Re: [c-nsp] SFP high power alarm

2016-04-04 Thread Plawansai RMUTT CPE IX
Hi, I have this problem too. I found all of the transceivers which show the log: %SFF8472-5-THRESHOLD_VIOLATION: Portx/x: Tx power high alarm; Operating value: A dBm, Threshold value: B dBm.aren't cisco. They are OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer). Thank you very much.

[c-nsp] SFP high power alarm

2012-08-21 Thread marc williams
10 GIG cisco compatible SFP in a 3750-X switch. we started to see this error message after a fibre break and repair: %SFF8472-5-THRESHOLD_VIOLATION: Te4/1/2: Tx power high alarm; Operating value: 0.6 dBm, Threshold value: 0.0 dBm Cant see how the TX power can go high? any ideas?

Re: [c-nsp] SFP high power alarm

2012-08-21 Thread Phil Mayers
On 21/08/12 11:13, marc williams wrote: 10 GIG cisco compatible SFP in a 3750-X switch. we started to see this error message after a fibre break and repair: %SFF8472-5-THRESHOLD_VIOLATION: Te4/1/2: Tx power high alarm; Operating value: 0.6 dBm, Threshold value: 0.0 dBm Cant see how the TX

Re: [c-nsp] SFP high power alarm

2012-08-21 Thread Patrick Cole
Marc, Perhaps it was right on the limit of max receive threshold and they repaired a splice that was dodgy to start with increasing the signal. Patrick Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:13:48AM +0100, marc williams wrote: 10 GIG cisco compatible SFP in a 3750-X switch. we started to see this error

Re: [c-nsp] SFP high power alarm

2012-08-21 Thread John Brown
Put a real optical power meter on the fibers and adjust with pads as needed to get your levels within specs. On 8/21/12 4:37 AM, Patrick Cole z...@amused.net wrote: Marc, Perhaps it was right on the limit of max receive threshold and they repaired a splice that was dodgy to start with

Re: [c-nsp] SFP high power alarm

2012-08-21 Thread Wayne Tucker
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:13 AM, marc williams mar...@me.com wrote: 10 GIG cisco compatible SFP in a 3750-X switch. we started to see this error message after a fibre break and repair: %SFF8472-5-THRESHOLD_VIOLATION: Te4/1/2: Tx power high alarm; Operating value: 0.6 dBm, Threshold value:

Re: [c-nsp] SFP high power alarm

2012-08-21 Thread Peter Rathlev
On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 06:13 -0700, Wayne Tucker wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:13 AM, marc williams mar...@me.com wrote: %SFF8472-5-THRESHOLD_VIOLATION: Te4/1/2: Tx power high alarm; Operating value: 0.6 dBm, Threshold value: 0.0 dBm Too much signal can cause receiver saturation,

Re: [c-nsp] SFP high power alarm

2012-08-21 Thread Gert Doering
Hi, On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:26:50PM +, John Brown wrote: Put a real optical power meter on the fibers and adjust with pads as needed to get your levels within specs. That's *RX* power. Not TX power. TX power is something that is measured inside the SFP - an the question how can TX

Re: [c-nsp] SFP high power alarm

2012-08-21 Thread Wayne Tucker
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Peter Rathlev pe...@rathlev.dk wrote: On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 06:13 -0700, Wayne Tucker wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:13 AM, marc williams mar...@me.com wrote: %SFF8472-5-THRESHOLD_VIOLATION: Te4/1/2: Tx power high alarm; Operating value: 0.6 dBm,

Re: [c-nsp] SFP high power alarm

2012-08-21 Thread Andrew Koch
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:13 AM, marc williams mar...@me.com wrote: 10 GIG cisco compatible SFP in a 3750-X switch. we started to see this error message after a fibre break and repair: %SFF8472-5-THRESHOLD_VIOLATION: Te4/1/2: Tx power high alarm; Operating value: 0.6 dBm, Threshold value:

Re: [c-nsp] SFP high power alarm

2012-08-21 Thread Juergen Marenda
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 06:05:32PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: Hi, On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:26:50PM +, John Brown wrote: Put a real optical power meter on the fibers and adjust with pads as needed to get your levels within specs. That's *RX* power. Not TX power. TX power is

Re: [c-nsp] SFP high power alarm

2012-08-21 Thread Stephen Wilcox
Hi Marc, as Gert says they vary over time so this has occurred because either its putting out more power or the sensor has it wrong. You should test it with a light meter. It may go faulty, this could be a sign its on its way out. So, its probably not going to do any damage to a receiving optic,