We have mainly packet loss pinging from the remote end to ccr2004 gigabit interface, the problem probably occurs when the upstream traffic from the 10G->1G fullfill the ethernet..
No when the giga interface receive data from 10 giga interface: the slower port sometimes has to keep in pause the faster one before to receive new packets because the buffer is full or not have the buffer.We have mainly packet loss pinging from the remote end to ccr2004 gigabit interface, the problem probably occurs when the upstream traffic from the 10G->1G fullfill the ethernet..
So does the packet loss only occur when the 1G interface is full?
The first think that I have tried before to write here and to open a support ticket.Have you tried changing the interface queues for both ports from hardware-only to ethernet-default ?
You need buffering when mixing interface speeds on any router and i'm not sure what the default buffer capabilities are for the CCR2004.
I would at least try a few different queue types for the interfaces to see if performance improves.
But You did a downgrade! Take a look at the performance figures:Sincerely I am very disappointed for CCR2004's performance.
We replaced a CCR1036 + 10G switch (with trunks) to a CCR2004 with directly put in DACs cables 10G.
Well, I can't speak for the usage model on You network - but if it was taxing one CCR1036, I find remarkable that one CCR2004 can barely cope with the load. I mean, take a look at the results for 512 bytes and 25 ip rules: it's about 1/3 of the 1036 speed!Hello Paternot, I have read carefully the performance figures, but sincerely I expected a lot more.
I did not expect a 100% cpu load !!!
However I am planning to replace the 1036 witha 1072 because I need the pure 10G ports for each link.
I have some fear to get a 1072 that has issues as in the threads about "watchdog and 1072".
I use conntrack, I use Fasttrack, it is one of my border router.