ptember 02, 2009 1:32 AM
To: Bill Woodcock; nanog
Subject: Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold
> So, in summary: Your dropped packet counters are the ones to be looking at
> as a measure of goodput, more than your utilization counters.
Indeed. Capacity upgrades are best gauged by drop
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 08:39:20AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, Kevin Graham wrote:
>
> >Indeed. Capacity upgrades are best gauged by drop rates; bit-rates
> >without this context are largely useless.
>
> If you're dropping packets, you're already over the cliff. Our jo
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
If you're dropping packets, you're already over the cliff. Our job as
ISP is to forward the packets our customers send to us, how is that
compatible with upgrading links when they're so full that you're not
only buffering but you're actually DROPPING packets?
Many
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, Kevin Graham wrote:
Indeed. Capacity upgrades are best gauged by drop rates; bit-rates
without this context are largely useless.
If you're dropping packets, you're already over the cliff. Our job as ISP
is to forward the packets our customers send to us, how is that compat
> So, in summary: Your dropped packet counters are the ones to be looking at
> as a measure of goodput, more than your utilization counters.
Indeed. Capacity upgrades are best gauged by drop rates; bit-rates without
this context are largely useless.
When you're only aware of the RX side though,
Holmes,David A wrote:
runs with good values on all 3 measures (low RTT, little or no packet
loss, low jitter with small inter-packet arrival variation) can be
deemed not a candidate for bandwidth upgrades. The key to active
Sounds great, unless you don't own the router on the other side of the
> do any router vendors provide something akin to hardware latches to
> keep
> track of highest buffer fill levels? poll as frequently/infrequently
> as
> you like...
Without getting into each permutation of a device's architecture, aren't buffer
fills really just buffer drops? There are means t
: Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold
On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 11:55:45AM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> >In order to get a really good idea of what's going on at a microburst
> >level, you would need to poll as often as it takes to fill the b
On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 11:55:45AM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> >In order to get a really good idea of what's going on at a microburst
> >level, you would need to poll as often as it takes to fill the buffer
> >of the port in question. This is not feasible
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, Nick Hilliard wrote:
In order to get a really good idea of what's going on at a
microburst level, you would need to poll as often as it takes to
fill the buffer of the port in question. This is not feasible in
the general case, which is why we resort to hacks like QoS to
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, Randy Bush wrote:
If your 95th percentile utilization is at 80% capacity, it's time to
start planning the upgrade.
s/80/60/
the normal snmp and other averaging methods *really* miss the bursts.
Agreed. Internet traffic is very burtsy. If you care your customer
expe
> > > If your 95th percentile utilization is at 80% capacity,
> it's time to
> > > start planning the upgrade.
> >
> > s/80/60/
> >
> > the normal snmp and other averaging methods *really* miss
> the bursts.
>
> s/60/40/
>
What is this "upgrade" thing you all speak of? When your links become
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 01:03:35PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> >Also, a gig link on a Cisco will do approx 93-94% of imix of a gig
> >in the values presented via SNMP (around 930-940 megabit/s as seen
> >in "show int") before it's full, because of IFG, ethernet header
> >overhead etc.
If your 95th percentile utilization is at 80% capacity...
s/80/60/
s/60/40/
I would suggest that the reason each of you have a different number is
because there's a different best number for each case. Looking for any
single number to fit all cases, rather than understanding the underlying
On Aug 30, 2009, at 1:23 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, William Herrin wrote:
If your 95th percentile utilization is at 80% capacity, it's time
to start planning the upgrade. If your 95th percentile utilization
is at 95% it's time to finish the upgrade.
I now see why pe
On 30/08/2009 17:53, Shane Ronan wrote:
What system were you using to monitor link usage?
yrtg
Nick
What system were you using to monitor link usage?
Shane
On Aug 30, 2009, at 8:26 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 30/08/2009 13:04, Randy Bush wrote:
the normal snmp and other averaging methods *really* miss the bursts.
Definitely. For fun and giggles, I recently turned on 30 second
polling on
> Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:04:15 +0900
> From: Randy Bush
>
> > If your 95th percentile utilization is at 80% capacity, it's time to
> > start planning the upgrade.
>
> s/80/60/
>
> the normal snmp and other averaging methods *really* miss the bursts.
s/60/40/
If you need to carry large TCP
just wanted to know what is Link capacity upgrade threshold in terms of %
of link utilization? Just to get an idea...
If your 95th percentile utilization is at 80% capacity, it's time to
start planning the upgrade. If your 95th percentile utilization is at
95% it's time to finish the up
Nick Hilliard wrote:
Definitely. For fun and giggles, I recently turned on 30 second polling
on some kit and it turned up all sorts of interesting peculiarities that
were completely blotted out in a 5 minute average.
Would RMON History and Alarms help? I've always considered rolling them
o
On 30/08/2009 13:04, Randy Bush wrote:
the normal snmp and other averaging methods *really* miss the bursts.
Definitely. For fun and giggles, I recently turned on 30 second polling on
some kit and it turned up all sorts of interesting peculiarities that were
completely blotted out in a 5 min
> If your 95th percentile utilization is at 80% capacity, it's time to
> start planning the upgrade.
s/80/60/
the normal snmp and other averaging methods *really* miss the bursts.
randy
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, William Herrin wrote:
If your 95th percentile utilization is at 80% capacity, it's time to
start planning the upgrade. If your 95th percentile utilization is at
95% it's time to finish the upgrade.
I now see why people at the IETF spoke in a way that "core network
conges
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 11:50 PM, devang patel wrote:
> I just wanted to know what is Link capacity upgrade threshold in terms of %
> of link utilization? Just to get an idea...
If your 95th percentile utilization is at 80% capacity, it's time to
start planning the upgrade. I
: devang patel
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 21:50:41 -0600
To:
Subject: Link capacity upgrade threshold
Hi All,
I just wanted to know what is Link capacity upgrade threshold in terms of %
of link utilization? Just to get an idea...
thanks,
Devang Patel
Hi All,
I just wanted to know what is Link capacity upgrade threshold in terms of %
of link utilization? Just to get an idea...
thanks,
Devang Patel
26 matches
Mail list logo