Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
- Cisco Community
- :
- About joel.cason
05-17-2018
Stats
Member since
12-07-2015
17
Posts
7
Helpful
0
Solutions
Created by
joel.cason
in Unified Computing System Discussions
in Unified Computing System Discussions
02-22-2018
09:36 AM
02-22-2018
09:36 AM
Thank you for the information.
So is it safe to say that VLAN port optimization does not affect anything upstream, including ACI? From the upstream switch perspective, nothing will appear to change?
... View more
Created by
joel.cason
in Unified Computing System Discussions
in Unified Computing System Discussions
02-21-2018
12:34 PM
02-21-2018
12:34 PM
The max VLAN count per FI looks to be 32000, and 64000 when in optimized mode. With ACI we have a LOT of VLANs on some vNICs so we are approaching the 32000 limit.
Is there any downside to enabling the VLAN port count optimization? And will it conflict in some way with ACI? Looking at the UCSM guide it just seems like a positive thing to enable (less CPU utilization, more VLANs available) but it is not the default setting.
Finally, is this a disruptive setting to enable or disable? I know it can't be disabled if you have more than 32000 VLANs.
... View more
Labels:
Created by
joel.cason
in Unified Computing System Discussions
in Unified Computing System Discussions
02-20-2018
09:21 AM
02-20-2018
09:21 AM
Thanks Evan that is very helpful.
With respect to my last scenario and your last answer, in order to not impact existing servers with Best Effort when implementing a new QoS scheme other than default, we would need to first put QoS policies in place on all vNICs and then properly set the QoS System Classes? Does this sound right?
A couple of follow up questions.
1. Does setting a QoS policy (or changing a QoS policy) on a vNIC for an active server result in a reboot required situation? Or will this happen non-disruptively?
2. It is possible to set QoS policies for non-enabled traffic classes. E.g. I can create a QoS policy for Silver and attach it to a vNIC even though the Silver class is not enabled in System Class. What is the expected effect here? Will the non-enabled class default to Best Effort until it is enabled?
... View more
Created by
joel.cason
in Unified Computing System Discussions
in Unified Computing System Discussions
02-19-2018
11:09 AM
02-19-2018
11:09 AM
I'm trying to better understand how the default QoS behavior in UCS interacts with newly configured QoS policies.
1. My understanding is that the default behavior out of the box is that under congestion, FC traffic will get 50% of bandwidth and has no drop, and eth traffic will get 50% of bandwidth with drop. This is the default behavior without configuring any QoS policies or applying to vHBAs or vNICs. Is this correct?
2. There is an option of assigning a QoS policy to a vHBA. Is there a reason to do this other than if you want to give different vHBAs different QoS policies? In other words, as long as it is a vHBA it will get the % bandwidth and no drop from the system Fibre Channel class. Is this correct?
3. If service profiles are configured in this default manner (meaning system policy is 50% FC and 50% best effort and there are no QoS policies applied to vNIC/vHBAs), will an adjustment of the best effort QoS class or FC class affect traffic for them? Say I enable new QoS classes of service and adjust bandwidth so that FC only gets 30% of bandwidth and best effort gets 5% of bandwidth. What will happen to traffic under contention?
4. Related to #3, is it understood that any eth vNIC with no QoS policy attached will default into the best effort bucket?
... View more
Labels:
Created by
joel.cason
in Unified Computing System Discussions
in Unified Computing System Discussions
02-15-2018
06:21 AM
02-15-2018
06:21 AM
Got kind of an odd situation where there is a block of CIMC management IPs for use, and right in the middle of this block we have an IP conflict that can only be resolved on the UCS side.
Is it possible to remove an IP from the block, or to split the block, without causing any impact to other CIMC addresses?
If not, I should be able to delete the bad block and recreate 2 good blocks, and then it will reassign the IPs correct? CIMC would be unavailable during the modification but otherwise no impact?
... View more
Labels:
01-08-2018
01:41 PM
Can't figure out how to edit the original question. Meant to add, the person who fixed the 3850 believes it was related to auto qos but can't be sure and of course we have no notes or documentation on it.
... View more
01-08-2018
01:39 PM
I went through an issue earlier this year on a 3850 stack where we were trying to enable jumbo frames on a single L2 VLAN for a UCS environment connected via port channel to upstream switches. If the interfaces are both on the same UCS FI, jumbo works just fine. But we have issues when trying to cross the upstream switches. The jumbo enablement seems good (I can send >1500 byte ping), but after 1562 bytes things just die whether or not DF bit is set. Another person fixed the issue on the 3850 stack which they believe was related to auto QoS. We are now in a different deployment with a 2960X stack, same hardware configuration for the UCS stuff, and the same exact issue. I can send a 1562 byte packet with or without DF bit set, but as soon as I go 1563 or larger they drop into nothingness. I don't get a "fragmentation needed" message on the sender side. I ran tcpdump between the two hosts and I see the 1562 send and respond on either side. For the 1563, it sends but no response received anywhere. Auto QoS I'm told isn't being used here so it would have to be something else. Kind of desperate for ideas at this point as to what would be causing the same failure at the exact same 1562/1563 byte breakpoint. Code on the switches has been updated to the latest and greatest and didn't help this issue.
... View more
Labels:
12-22-2017
06:52 AM
You were right. I changed the input to admin input and selected the entry, and the output is actually a numeric ID so it wasn't matching up with the text. I modified the match statement to the number and it worked fine. Thanks!
... View more
12-22-2017
06:43 AM
This gives the same result as not using the ${} notation. It seems to always evaluate false. Maybe it is true that the SelectOS variable actually contains some kind of numerical ID. Is there an easy way to check what the value of this variable is while the workflow is executing?
... View more
12-22-2017
06:22 AM
Oh you may have been saying, am I sure that the contents of SelectOS are words and not a number? No I'm not. I'm choosing words from a list but maybe the actual content is some sort of ID number. Is it possible to debug or break to find out the value?
... View more
12-22-2017
06:20 AM
If I look at workflow properties, there is just the one input variable (catalog) and it is labeled SelectOS. It actually had a space before and I deleted the space just to see. The exact if statement is: SelectOS contains "Win" And using this statement, if I select a catalog item like Windows 2008 it evaluates to false.
... View more
12-22-2017
05:33 AM
I'm having trouble trying to integrate (what I think should be) a simple if/else statement in a workflow. The documentation on this seems pretty lacking. I created a new workflow called ifelsetest with a user input of catalog as "SelectOS". I want to do an if/else based on if this input contains "Win." So far every time either the if/else statement fails when it runs, or it always evaluates to false even when the Select OS category is something like "Window 2008". What should the evalutation statement be to execute this? If I try SelectOS contains "Win" it evaluates false. I've also tried ifelsetest SelectOS contains "Win" which just fails to execute.
... View more
Labels:
Created by
joel.cason
in Unified Computing System Discussions
in Unified Computing System Discussions
12-05-2017
11:22 AM
12-05-2017
11:22 AM
I'm trying to better understand where a communication issue is happening between VMware on UCS and ACI. UCS is a pretty simple config with a port channel to upstream ACI. Server ports are not using port channels today. I've got two interfaces (virtual on VMware, not vnics) split between the FIs. If they don't talk for a long time, then they can't talk to each other. If I try to ping from A to B, it fails. Using other interfaces, I can ping A to A and B to B just fine. Still A to B fails. As soon as I ping B to A it starts working, in both directions. It doesn't matter which direction I start but it always manifests the same way. I know UCS drops unknown unicast but I'm not clear on what is causing this. Is this some functionality within ACI that is modifying the normal broadcast behavior? Or am I missing something?
... View more
Labels:
Created by
joel.cason
in UCS Director Discussions
in UCS Director Discussions
10-20-2017
12:10 PM
10-20-2017
12:10 PM
OK I see this task (Get IP Address from Pool) and it tests out good, but this would be for pulling an additional random address out of the pool correct? So I could provide an additional IP if someone asks for it, but if someone assigns an IP and then lets me know what it is, is there a built in way to mark it as reserved?
... View more
Created by
joel.cason
in UCS Director Discussions
in UCS Director Discussions
10-20-2017
11:47 AM
10-20-2017
11:47 AM
I know the best idea here is likely to reserve an IP block per subnet that UCSD doesn't control, but is it possible to reserve an IP somehow such that a static pool won't allocate it, other than excluding it from the list? E.g. if I create two VMs with UCSD, but need to reserve a VIP in the same pool, can I mark the IP as used even though UCSD doesn't create it? Or, is it possible to modify an existing, in-use static pool without affecting existing reservations? So I can modify the IP range values to exclude an IP that is in use?
... View more
Labels:
02-22-2018
Thank you for the information. So is it safe to say that VLAN port
optimization does not affect anyt...
02-21-2018
The max VLAN count per FI looks to be 32000, and 64000 when in optimized
mode. With ACI we have a LO...
Created by
joel.cason
in Unified Computing System Discussions
02-20-2018
02-20-2018
Thanks Evan that is very helpful. With respect to my last scenario and
your last answer, in order to...
Created by
joel.cason
in Unified Computing System Discussions
02-19-2018
02-19-2018
I'm trying to better understand how the default QoS behavior in UCS
interacts with newly configured ...
Created by
joel.cason
in Unified Computing System Discussions
02-15-2018
02-15-2018
Got kind of an odd situation where there is a block of CIMC management
IPs for use, and right in the...
01-08-2018
Can't figure out how to edit the original question. Meant to add, the
person who fixed the 3850 beli...
01-08-2018
I went through an issue earlier this year on a 3850 stack where we were
trying to enable jumbo frame...
12-22-2017
You were right. I changed the input to admin input and selected the
entry, and the output is actuall...
12-22-2017
This gives the same result as not using the ${} notation. It seems to
always evaluate false.Maybe it...
12-22-2017
Oh you may have been saying, am I sure that the contents of SelectOS are
words and not a number? No ...
12-22-2017
If I look at workflow properties, there is just the one input variable
(catalog) and it is labeled S...
12-22-2017
I'm having trouble trying to integrate (what I think should be) a simple
if/else statement in a work...
12-05-2017
I'm trying to better understand where a communication issue is happening
between VMware on UCS and A...
Created by
joel.cason
in UCS Director Discussions
10-20-2017
10-20-2017
OK I see this task (Get IP Address from Pool) and it tests out good, but
this would be for pulling a...
Created by
joel.cason
in UCS Director Discussions
10-20-2017
10-20-2017
I know the best idea here is likely to reserve an IP block per subnet
that UCSD doesn't control, but...
Public Statistics
| Date Registered | 12-07-2015 01:11 PM |
| Date Last Visited | 05-17-2018 08:57 AM |
| Total Messages Posted | 17 |
| Total Helpful Votes Received | 7 |
