From: Devi Mallampalli (Devi.Mallampalli@chubb.com.au)
Date: Wed Sep 08 2004 - 22:58:27 GMT-3
Hi Group,
Just like the way, we deploy "deliberate smaller Tc " value for RTP and
RTCP traffic as oppose to Data/bursty traffic which is comfortable in
sitting at either 125ms or 100ms Tc time slots, I was wondering is it
advisable to fine tune the Serial Interface's(where Voice Vcs are
terminated at) TX Ring default queue size in order to minimize the
driver-level-queuing latency. Because I would imagine, if the wire is
busy enough, then TX ring will make Voice packets to stand in the queue
for longer milli seconds until she get a chance to serialize them. But
greater latency from that activity may be fatal for Voice
VCs/conversations. The fact that Voice packets are much smaller than
Data packets, I am sure I can not use same value at TX-RING-LIMIT
command for both Data and Voice serial interfaces.
I appreciate if some one advise me on the following Qs :-)
1) What is the default value/behavior of TX ring limit on 2 MB serial
interface with 4 x 500k Voice PVCs ?
2) Secondly if the serial interface is of HSSI , let us say about 10MB
pipe , does it's interface TX ring limit automatically adjusts to that
kind of line speed ? Or shall we have to fine tune the ring limit
accordingly?
3) Finally what is the best value (on tx-ring-limit command) for Voice
PVCs/interfaces ? And why ?
As lately I got some problems on our production Voice PVCs in terms of
their performance (like consistent IGP neighbor instability at layer 3
and FREEK kicking frequently at layer 2..etc),I am really planning to
fine tune the TX ring limit at our Voice physical interface as we have
exhausted all other T/S avenues.
And any of your feed back is much appreciated :-)
Cheers
Devi.
*************************************************************
This email and any files attached are considered
confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom this email is addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please send a
reply message to this email address.
This footnote also confirms that the above email has been
scanned for the presence of computer viruses.
*************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 01 2004 - 15:00:40 GMT-3