<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: ISE | Virtual Instance Sizing in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-virtual-instance-sizing/m-p/3714729#M507354</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I'm always skeptical of scaling numbers, I feel marketing people grab a number and run with it.&amp;nbsp; We recently had the unfortunate opportunity to test how many active connections a single 2.4 3595 vm PSN can take.&amp;nbsp; Three of the four VM's behind one of the LB's were killed by the server team, we ran just under 50k active on the remaining vm in that DC for a day and a half.&amp;nbsp; We considered shutting it down to force failover but no one reported any issues.&amp;nbsp; Authentication latency did rise from the usual 40 ms to around 200ms, CPU only went up ~5%.&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I imagine every deployment would be different.&amp;nbsp; In this case it is primarily wired/wireless eap chaining/eap-tls/mab/mschap/peap, minimal guest portal usage, no posture, and not the dhcp profiling target. I suspect that most of the latency came from the load put on AD, ISE appeared unphased by the event.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;From a scaling perspective we haven't had auth issues, just mnt issues.&amp;nbsp; Wish we could have stayed on 2.1.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2018 02:25:29 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Damien Miller</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-09-28T02:25:29Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ISE | Virtual Instance Sizing</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-virtual-instance-sizing/m-p/3714371#M507348</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi bros,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;We have customer with 6000 active users and they consider to choose VM instance or physical appliance to deploy. i have sizing question on the VM Instance and need your advice on the queries below:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;-&amp;nbsp;Cisco ISE Virtual Machine Small can have&amp;nbsp;16GB RAM and up to 6 CPU cores: can it handle 6000 active users?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- can we install this VM with more resources like 32Gb RAm and more CPUs?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Highly appreciate for any quick response.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;thanks in advance.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Br,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;hainm&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2018 14:57:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-virtual-instance-sizing/m-p/3714371#M507348</guid>
      <dc:creator>hanguye3</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-09-27T14:57:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE | Virtual Instance Sizing</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-virtual-instance-sizing/m-p/3714399#M507351</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;32 GB is not a valid configuration for an ISE VM. The supported VM deployments for 2.2/2.3/2.4 are either a 3515 (16GB, 12 vcpu, 12000 MHZ) or 3595(64 GB, 16 vcpu, 16000mhz).&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;To give you a direct answer, you can support 6000 active endpoints on 3515's.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Here is the scaling guide that answers this question. &lt;A href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/security-documents/ise-performance-amp-scale/ta-p/3642148" target="_blank"&gt;https://community.cisco.com/t5/security-documents/ise-performance-amp-scale/ta-p/3642148&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;TABLE border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"&gt;
&lt;TBODY&gt;
&lt;TR&gt;
&lt;TD valign="top"&gt;Maximum number of concurrent sessions in a Hybrid deployment&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;(PAN &amp;amp; MnT on a single node and dedicated PSNs)&lt;/TD&gt;
&lt;TD valign="top"&gt;
&lt;P&gt;5,000 for 3415 as PAN+MnT&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;10,000 for 3495 as PAN+MnT&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;7,500 for 3515 as PAN+MnT&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;20,000 for 3595 as PAN+MnT&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/TD&gt;
&lt;TD valign="top"&gt;Same&lt;/TD&gt;
&lt;/TR&gt;
&lt;TR&gt;
&lt;TD valign="top"&gt;Maximum number of concurrent sessions in a Standalone deployment&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;(PAN, MnT, and PSN personas all on a single node)&lt;/TD&gt;
&lt;TD valign="top"&gt;
&lt;P&gt;5,000 for 3415&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;10,000 for 3495&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;7,500 for 3515&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;20,000 for 3595&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/TD&gt;
&lt;TD valign="top"&gt;Same&lt;/TD&gt;
&lt;/TR&gt;
&lt;/TBODY&gt;
&lt;/TABLE&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2018 15:17:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-virtual-instance-sizing/m-p/3714399#M507351</guid>
      <dc:creator>Damien Miller</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-09-27T15:17:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE | Virtual Instance Sizing</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-virtual-instance-sizing/m-p/3714699#M507352</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I often tell my customers that if they split the PAN and MnT into separate VM's, then a SNS-3595 PSN can handle 40,000 concurrent sessions.&amp;nbsp; Is that number still correct?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Is 40,000 concurrent sessions perhaps too much load for a single box, versus spreading the load over two or four smaller PSN's?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;If you're dealing with a centralised design ( DC-1 and DC-2 ) and you put all your PSN's in the DC, ... AND ... you want to avoid a load balancer in your design (i.e. PSN &amp;lt;= 2 ), then using the SNS-3595 and loading it up to the eyeballs is an option.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2018 00:46:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-virtual-instance-sizing/m-p/3714699#M507352</guid>
      <dc:creator>Arne Bier</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-09-28T00:46:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE | Virtual Instance Sizing</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-virtual-instance-sizing/m-p/3714729#M507354</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I'm always skeptical of scaling numbers, I feel marketing people grab a number and run with it.&amp;nbsp; We recently had the unfortunate opportunity to test how many active connections a single 2.4 3595 vm PSN can take.&amp;nbsp; Three of the four VM's behind one of the LB's were killed by the server team, we ran just under 50k active on the remaining vm in that DC for a day and a half.&amp;nbsp; We considered shutting it down to force failover but no one reported any issues.&amp;nbsp; Authentication latency did rise from the usual 40 ms to around 200ms, CPU only went up ~5%.&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I imagine every deployment would be different.&amp;nbsp; In this case it is primarily wired/wireless eap chaining/eap-tls/mab/mschap/peap, minimal guest portal usage, no posture, and not the dhcp profiling target. I suspect that most of the latency came from the load put on AD, ISE appeared unphased by the event.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;From a scaling perspective we haven't had auth issues, just mnt issues.&amp;nbsp; Wish we could have stayed on 2.1.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2018 02:25:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-virtual-instance-sizing/m-p/3714729#M507354</guid>
      <dc:creator>Damien Miller</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-09-28T02:25:29Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE | Virtual Instance Sizing</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-virtual-instance-sizing/m-p/3714732#M507357</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;That's very useful feedback.&amp;nbsp; I also think that a machine with 64GB RAM and all those MHz of CPU power can handle such a load.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I remember the days when we used to quote the number of cps (connections per second) or logins per second on service provider radius platforms (e.g. Cisco Prime Access Registrar).&amp;nbsp; Those boxes were much more light weight than ISE and handled a massive load.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Imagine a radius server handling 500 unique clients performing EAP authentications in a sustained manner.&amp;nbsp; In most enterprises, we don't see 500 logins per second on a single Radius server.&amp;nbsp; Those quoted 20,000 sessions in ISE documentation are probably accumulated over a long period of time, and nothing much happens on ISE until the NAS sends an Accounting update. ISE just needs RAM to store all of these sessions.&amp;nbsp; And the latency is potentially related to higher disk activity (since you mentioned the CPU only rose by 5%) - I doubt that a 1Gbps LAN connection was the bottleneck.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;It's a different situation though, if those 20,000 clients were forced to re-auth SIMULTANEOUSLY due to a NAS failure - then perhaps ISE could be bombarded with a lot of cps and collapse all over the place.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2018 02:42:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-virtual-instance-sizing/m-p/3714732#M507357</guid>
      <dc:creator>Arne Bier</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-09-28T02:42:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE | Virtual Instance Sizing</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-virtual-instance-sizing/m-p/3714757#M507358</link>
      <description>Many thanks for your feedback, bros!!!&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2018 03:42:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-virtual-instance-sizing/m-p/3714757#M507358</guid>
      <dc:creator>hanguye3</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-09-28T03:42:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

