cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
987
Views
15
Helpful
15
Replies
WGL_BK
Beginner

9200L CPU @ 15% Caused 6.25% Packet Loss

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?

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

Sure also advise to setup a syslog server so you have information.

BB

***** Rate All Helpful Responses *****

How to Ask The Community for Help

View solution in original post

15 REPLIES 15
marce1000
VIP Advisor

Thank you for that resource. I'll try to see how best I can put it to use here.

balaji.bandi
VIP Expert

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.

 

 

 

BB

***** Rate All Helpful Responses *****

How to Ask The Community for Help

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

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 ?

BB

***** Rate All Helpful Responses *****

How to Ask The Community for Help

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.

Sure also advise to setup a syslog server so you have information.

BB

***** Rate All Helpful Responses *****

How to Ask The Community for Help

View solution in original post

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)

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?

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

BB

***** Rate All Helpful Responses *****

How to Ask The Community for Help

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.

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.

 

BB

***** Rate All Helpful Responses *****

How to Ask The Community for Help

Ah is this Gibraltar-16.12.5b you've found stable?

yes, many Cat 9300 works as expected as of now. but we are testing the 17.3.X part of DNAC rollout soon.

 

BB

***** Rate All Helpful Responses *****

How to Ask The Community for Help

Content for Community-Ad