<?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 ISE Scale in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-scale/m-p/3493339#M530656</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is it standard practise to have the bigger SNS-3595s as the PAN/MnT and the smaller SNS-3515s as the PSNs in a distributed deployment. I am 95% sure it is, but want to make sure.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Mar 2017 05:28:35 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>dazza_johnson</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2017-03-17T05:28:35Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ISE Scale</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-scale/m-p/3493339#M530656</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is it standard practise to have the bigger SNS-3595s as the PAN/MnT and the smaller SNS-3515s as the PSNs in a distributed deployment. I am 95% sure it is, but want to make sure.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Mar 2017 05:28:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-scale/m-p/3493339#M530656</guid>
      <dc:creator>dazza_johnson</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-03-17T05:28:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE Scale</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-scale/m-p/3493340#M530657</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Standard practice is SNS-3595 throughout.&amp;nbsp; All of the published numbers for ISE Distributed Deployments are written as every node is a or sized as a 3595.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For the Medium-Sized deployments, it is also assumes that the platform for the PSN is the same as the Admin/MnT.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Mixing them will not yield the same numbers as have been published.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A _jive_internal="true" href="https://community.cisco.com/docs/DOC-68347"&gt;ISE Deployment and Scaling&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Mar 2017 12:21:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-scale/m-p/3493340#M530657</guid>
      <dc:creator>Charlie Moreton</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-03-17T12:21:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE Scale</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-scale/m-p/3493341#M530658</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;"All of the published numbers for ISE Distributed Deployments are written as every node is a or sized as a 3595."&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is not a correct statement.&amp;nbsp; We perform Performance and Scale testing based on the various deployment models listed in above link.&amp;nbsp; These numbers are based on PnS testing for the various platforms including 3415, 3495, 3515, and 3595.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; It is correct that we always assume a large appliance (3495 or 3595) for all deployments where each persona runs on a dedicated node.&amp;nbsp; The per-PSN scaling figures are also rated based on specific platform.&amp;nbsp; Even our multi-node/multi-service scale testing where we represent a full deployment includes options with mixed nodes.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Let me know if seeing anything in the documentation that would imply that our scaling numbers are predicated solely on 3595.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In response to original question, I assume question is specific to the middle tier deployment model.&amp;nbsp; If standalone or fully dedicated model, then specific guidance is provided.&amp;nbsp; For deployments middle-tier deployments with collocated PAN+MnT and distributed nodes, and asking if you should use 3595 for PAN+MnT versus PSNs, then I recommend PAN+MnT node.&amp;nbsp; The total capacity of deployment is gated based on the PAN/MNT node and MnT can best leverage the faster and higher-capacity disk system in 3595. It also sets you up for greater scale and expansion to fully dedicated deployment.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;/Craig&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:09:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-scale/m-p/3493341#M530658</guid>
      <dc:creator>Craig Hyps</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-03-21T08:09:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

