Hi everyone,
I wonder which percentage is good level of CPU and Memory util of network equipment ?
In my case, I try to keep under 30% cpu util and 70% memory util. My most equipment are Cisco product.
I have no technical reference about that, it is just a rule of mine or my predecessor.
Could you tell me how other operators are doing ? what is your operation baseline ? or is there any guideline about process utilization ?
Best regards,
Chiyoung
Good morning (from here),
lionair@samsung.com (???×?) wrote:
I wonder which percentage is good level of CPU and Memory util of network equipment ?
In my case, I try to keep under 30% cpu util and 70% memory util. My most equipment are Cisco product.
I have no technical reference about that, it is just a rule of mine or my predecessor.
Could you tell me how other operators are doing ? what is your operation baseline ? or is there any guideline about process utilization ?
I'm trying to keep all Cisco equipment idle, if at all possible,
since there may come worse times...
Typical exceptions are
- software forwarding routers, where CPU load is directly
depending on current traffic levels; should the load stay
above 15-20% all the time, it's time for an upgrade
- slow-CPU boxes like everything Cisco with SUPs, since the
CPU load _always_ jumps to 100% for short periods of
time - BGP needs something calculated 
I get interested
whenever CPU load _stays_ high
- switches; Cisco switches need like 5% CPU to blink the LEDs
It gets more interested with packet filters and load balancers,
where CPU loads depend on traffic levels and patterns. I try to
keep the baseline between 5 and 10%.
HTH,
Elmar.
Yeah - Cisco would like to know why as well:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac50/ac207/crc_new/university/RFP/rfp07026.html
-Hank
hank@efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) wrote:
> - slow-CPU boxes like everything Cisco with SUPs, since the
> CPU load _always_ jumps to 100% for short periods of
> time - BGP needs something calculated
> whenever CPU load _stays_ highYeah - Cisco would like to know why as well:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac50/ac207/crc_new/university/RFP/rfp07026.html
I know
But: This is not a churn problem, it's a problem of slow CPUs in
allegedly big-and-fast boxes. I'd like a NPE-G2 blade for my
76's, as RP. Still, this is getting off-topic.
Elmar.
Elmar K. Bins wrote:
lists@memetic.org (Adam Armstrong) wrote:
>>> CPU load _always_ jumps to 100% for short periods of
>>> time - BGP needs something calculated
>>> whenever CPU load _stays_ high
>>>
>>Yeah - Cisco would like to know why as well:
>>http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac50/ac207/crc_new/university/RFP/rfp07026.html
>>
>
>I know
>
>But: This is not a churn problem, it's a problem of slow CPUs in
>allegedly big-and-fast boxes. I'd like a NPE-G2 blade for my
>76's, as RP. Still, this is getting off-topic.
>The MSFC4 in the RSP720 has a 1.2GHz 8548 PPC whereas the NPE-G2 has a
1.67GHz 7448 PPC.I'd guess the performance isn't all that far apart, especially as the
MSFC4's processor isn't doing any forwarding.
That's why I wrote "with SUPs" (and not RSPs). RSP is fairly new, and
they got it right this time.