c2960-lanbasek9-tar.150-2.SE2.tar High memory consumption

[jtaisie]

Hi all,

I would appreciate heartily if anyone could explain me why my Clients-LAN Switches (c2960) when upgrading to new IOS namely,

c2960-lanbasek9-tar.150-2.SE1 and  c2960-lanbasek9-tar.150-2.SE2 rump up Memory consumption to somewhere between 80% and 90%.

Is there a "bug" still with these IOS releases that could have caused these? I have never had this issue with older IOS (c2960-lanbasek9-tar.150-2.SE) release. I have read through Cisco Documents on these releases but wasn't too sure if the new features on these IOSs may have caused this high memory usage.

Shown is the example of one of the many c2960-Switches using these IOSs. In the meantime, I am planning to downgrade to c2960-lanbasek9-tar.150-2.SE.

Looking forward to your responses.

Regards,

James

[acampbell · Accepted solution]

Hi,

CSCtw83946 Bug Details

Low Memory Issues on 2960 switches

Symptom: High Memory Utilization on the 2960 switch. Without any configuration just an out of box switch is showing low memory. The memory available is just 5mb.Conditions: No configuration , just out of the box switch with 12.2(58)SE2 image. ------------------ show memory statistics ------------------ Head Total(b) Used(b) Free(b) Lowest(b) Largest(b) Processor 27A7D6C 21586420 16308768 5277652 4527884 5165508 I/O 2C00000 4194304 2464344 1729960 1729960 1718664 Driver te 1A00000 1048576 44 1048532 1048532 1048532Workaround: None.This is a physical limitation and that is how far we can go . We should still be able to do configurations, though a large set might need an upgrade as per C-comments

Regards,
Alex.
Please rate useful posts.

[jtaisie]

Thank you for the Information Alex...! That bug report is very helpful. I will now proceed with downgrade to a lower release - may I ask if its okay to downgrade to the 122-58.SE2 or 150-2.SE. Am simply asking for your opinion.

Many thanks again.

James

[acampbell · Accepted solution]

James,

The consensus from the forum seems to be that 12.2.58 ---> 15.....

are full of issues.

Try loading

c2960-lanbasek9-tar.122-55.SE7.tar and see how it runs

Regards,
Alex.
Please rate useful posts.

[jtaisie]

Thank you Alex, I will inform my colleagues about that info. Appreciate the support.

Regards,

James

[Iker Santamaria Molla]

Hi all,

we have the same problem in one of our customers.

We've opened a TAC case (about a month ago) and, tests and more tests for nothing.

Tomorrow we'll have Webex session with a Cisco's Engineer... but the only conclusion is that the switches (Catalyst 2960) consume more and more memory with each new release.

It's frustrating!!

I attach a little document with the memory consumption levels from 2007 to 2013 for different's IOS versions

For the moment we'll use 12.2(50)SE5 (802.1x, MAB, DHCP Snooping, etc.) and works fine!

Regards.

[Leo Laohoo]

Avoid using 12.2(58)SE 15.0(1)SE, and 15.0(2)SE.

Highly recommended IOS is 12.2(55)SE7.

[lcd_shouldit]

Hi LEO, how about 6509 switch, we want to use VSS.

Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPhone App

[Leo Laohoo]

I can't comment about 15.X on the 6500 because I can't test.

My opinion is this, if your supervisor can load SXI/SXJ IOS version, then you are compatible to the 15.X.  It is also in my opinion that the 15.X for the Sup720 doesn't suffer the same CPU hog as the Catalyst 2K/3K, however, this does NOT mean that the 15.X (or other previous versions) is immune to CPU hog issues.

It's safer to go through the Release Notes just to keep you informed.

[lcd_shouldit]

seems s72033-adventerprisek9_wan-mz.122-33.SXJ5.bin is great.

It is "Safe Harbor".

[Iker Santamaria Molla · Accepted solution]

Leo Laohoo escribió:
Avoid using 12.2(58)SE 15.0(1)SE, and 15.0(2)SE. 
Highly recommended IOS is 12.2(55)SE7.

Hi Leo, thanks for your answer!

As you can see in the graphic, we have a problem using IOS version 12.2(55)SE7 because if we use this version, we only get about 8 MB free memory, not enough for daily use. This problem also happens in versions higher to 12.2(50)SE5

[Leo Laohoo]

Hi Iker,

Your graph is very wierd.  All my fleet of 3750/G/E/X are running 12.2(55)SE7.  They all have PoE and 802.1x and I have never seen a high CPU as depicted on your graph. 

[Iker Santamaria Molla]

Leo Laohoo escribió:
Hi Iker,

Your graph is very wierd.  All my fleet of 3750/G/E/X are running 12.2(55)SE7.  They all have PoE and 802.1x and I have never seen a high CPU as depicted on your graph.  

Hi Leo,

thank you for your quick reply, but clearly we are not talking about the same thing.

• First of all, my graph refers to the Catalyst 2960 family and the amount of memory RAM consumption.
• Secondly, there is no problem at all with the other Catalyst models (3750,4500, 6500, ...) and the latest IOS versions.

Regards

[Leo Laohoo]

Ok.   Well, I would probably not know because all of my 2960/G/S are running 15.0(2)SE2.  This is a buggy version but my CPU ain't that high either.

[jtaisie]

Thanks a lot all for your posts.

Yes, we do reduce the problem by resorting all IOS upgrades to the hawdwares concerned to

12.2(55)SE7. This works like charm and have less issues or none at all since the date I created this thread.

Thanks.

James