06-10-2021 07:42 PM
Hi.
We used Solarwinds NPM to monitor our 9200L switches. They're configured with an SVI and an IP address is placed on it. That IP address is what NPM uses to contact them. According to NPM, a switch's CPU spiked today to around 15% and we saw that we had about 6% packet loss (reachability between NPM and switch) at the same time. My question is this, would a spike to such a low value be likely to cause that packet loss?
Solved! Go to Solution.
06-11-2021 06:42 AM
Sure also advise to setup a syslog server so you have information.
06-10-2021 11:11 PM
- Unlikely you can further troubleshoot with :
M.
06-11-2021 04:38 AM
Thank you for that resource. I'll try to see how best I can put it to use here.
06-11-2021 04:23 AM
Can you post show process cpu sorted, also post show interface gi x/x or svi interface information to look, along with show version will help.
06-11-2021 04:38 AM - edited 06-11-2021 08:58 AM
Sure, I cut the show version down to version info to spare you the standard info - let me know if you need it all, please. Thanks for the reply.
Switch Ports Model SW Version SW Image Mode ------ ----- ----- ---------- ---------- ---- * 1 52 C9200L-48P-4X 16.9.5 CAT9K_LITE_IOSXE INSTALL
show int vlan 16 Vlan16 is up, line protocol is up , Autostate Enabled Hardware is Ethernet SVI, address is 683b.7894.fada (bia 683b.7894.fada) Internet address is 10.100.78.48/24 MTU 1500 bytes, BW 1000000 Kbit/sec, DLY 10 usec, reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255 Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set Keepalive not supported ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00 Last input 00:00:00, output 00:00:00, output hang never Last clearing of "show interface" counters never Input queue: 0/375/0/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 0 Queueing strategy: fifo Output queue: 0/40 (size/max) 5 minute input rate 4000 bits/sec, 5 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 1000 bits/sec, 1 packets/sec 200814758 packets input, 22882897386 bytes, 66 no buffer Received 0 broadcasts (0 IP multicasts) 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles 0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored 44931745 packets output, 8173441912 bytes, 0 underruns 0 output errors, 2 interface resets 0 unknown protocol drops 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out
show process cpu sorted CPU utilization for five seconds: 1%/0%; one minute: 2%; five minutes: 2% PID Runtime(ms) Invoked uSecs 5Sec 1Min 5Min TTY Process 119 28591772 462352145 61 0.23% 0.09% 0.08% 0 IOSXE-RP Punt Se 73 108399240 136772040 792 0.15% 0.46% 0.60% 0 Net Background 123 22177840 1983222901 11 0.15% 0.07% 0.06% 0 L2 LISP Punt Pro 219 21583144 329108569 65 0.07% 0.07% 0.06% 0 UDLD 210 17119820 385045880 44 0.07% 0.08% 0.07% 0 IP Input
06-11-2021 06:05 AM
as per the information i do not see any issue with the output.
what you see any Logs which shows that time as unusal ? what IP address you try to ping to SVI IP ?
06-11-2021 06:09 AM
I imagine what I'll have to do is wait for the issue to repeat and capture traffic then. It's not a consistent enough problem to catch the info at the right time.
06-11-2021 06:42 AM
Sure also advise to setup a syslog server so you have information.
06-11-2021 07:25 AM - edited 06-11-2021 07:27 AM
I did not think to check my syslog server - must've been a long day.
I got this from it:
IOS shim client 'ngwc fed bipc' has taken 6972 msec (runtime: 0 msec) to process a 'unknown' message
Edit: seems to refer to this bug
Bug Search (cisco.com)
06-11-2021 07:49 AM
I'm also seeing this: processing GetNext of cisco.5.1.3.1.1.11
I haven't been able to find what this OID is referring to. Would you know?
06-11-2021 08:56 AM
16.9.5
Oh i have ignored this, these version and .6 also bit or more of bugs we seen, why not uplift the IOS XE 16.12.X to fix most issues
06-11-2021 09:01 AM
Noted. If I were to upgrade, I'd use Cisco's recommended 17.3.3 (MD) for that platform. The bug page didn't say that an upgrade would fix the issue though.
06-12-2021 02:09 PM
17.3.3 not tested myself, it's in the roadmap to test in the lab, before we move to production, But we see 16.12.X is stable.
06-12-2021 03:05 PM
Ah is this Gibraltar-16.12.5b you've found stable?
06-12-2021 03:14 PM
yes, many Cat 9300 works as expected as of now. but we are testing the 17.3.X part of DNAC rollout soon.
Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community: