830 - worth to start with ?
in [Cisco]
|
Prev: (Cash Paid for Used I.T. Equipment) Attn: CTO, CIO, COO, I.T Director, I.T. Manager, Network Administrator:
Next: QoS on Cisco ASA 5505 (DSL)
From: Jan on 20 Feb 2010 09:39 Jan <cvega66666(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:Xns9D2589CEBD22cvega666gmailcom(a)69.16.176.253: > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)geeks.org> wrote in > news:4b7da367$0$50147$8046368a(a)newsreader.iphouse.net: > >> ... > > one more quick one : CISCO C831 (MPC857DSL) processor (revision 0x300) with 44237K/4915K bytes of memory. Processor board ID AMB07170C4V (695387776), with hardware revision 0000 CPU rev number 7 Bridging software. 2 Ethernet/IEEE 802.3 interface(s) 128K bytes of non-volatile configuration memory. 24576K bytes of processor board System flash (Read/Write) 2048K bytes of processor board Web flash (Read/Write) does that seem right? I was under the impression the 831 was a 10/100 router? and : Ethernet0 is up, line protocol is up Hardware is PQUICC Ethernet, address is 000d.2813.8678 (bia 000d.2813.8678) Description: ****** INSIDE LAN ****** Internet address is 10.10.0.1/24 MTU 1500 bytes, BW 10000 Kbit, DLY 1000 usec, reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255 Ethernet1 is up, line protocol is up Hardware is PQUICC_FEC, address is 000d.2813.8679 (bia 000d.2813.8679) Description: ***** OUTSIDE INTERFACE ******* Internet address is x.x.x.x/24 MTU 1500 bytes, BW 10000 Kbit, DLY 1000 usec, reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255 -- * has started to scramble (Stargate)
From: Doug McIntyre on 20 Feb 2010 23:56 Jan <cvega66666(a)gmail.com> writes: >I have obtained a different release of the IOS (friend with a CCO account), >and i managed to get the router working and operational. >I think the seller has sold it due to him trying to get a wrong version on >it. Either way, its probable that your new version doesn't excerise the area of bad DRAM you likely have. Generally, routers don't crash like that. While I can't say if I've run that exact version, I've certainly run something around the same vintange and feature set successfully on 831's without having them crash.
From: Doug McIntyre on 21 Feb 2010 00:06 Jan <cvega66666(a)gmail.com> writes: >CISCO C831 (MPC857DSL) processor (revision 0x300) with 44237K/4915K bytes >of memory. >Processor board ID AMB07170C4V (695387776), with hardware revision 0000 >CPU rev number 7 >Bridging software. >2 Ethernet/IEEE 802.3 interface(s) >128K bytes of non-volatile configuration memory. >24576K bytes of processor board System flash (Read/Write) >2048K bytes of processor board Web flash (Read/Write) >does that seem right? Sure. >I was under the impression the 831 was a 10/100 router? Nope. >Ethernet0 is up, line protocol is up >Ethernet1 is up, line protocol is up The 831 has a 10Mbps "WAN" port, and a 10Mbps "LAN" port feeding into an internal 4 port 10/100 switch. http://www.ciscosystems.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps380/ps4874/product_data_sheet09186a008010e5c5.pdf (Product specs on page 5, not exactly spelled out that is how it is, having the WAN port at 10Mbps pretty much makes it so). If you are expecting better than 10Mbps speeds, you do have to be careful of the Cisco low-end, older gear. Not until the ISR/ISR2 gear is throughput approaching something people are expecting out of it now-a-days for run of the mill networking requirements. Cisco is not known for speedy boxes. If you want tons of features, and super reliability, then cisco is great. If you are expecting throughput or vendor interoperability (ie. especially IPSec VPN setups), then Cisco is not one to look at.
From: Jan on 21 Feb 2010 06:21 Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)geeks.org> wrote in news:4b80bf6d$0$50147$8046368a(a)newsreader.iphouse.net: > The 831 has a 10Mbps "WAN" port, and a 10Mbps "LAN" port feeding into > an internal 4 port 10/100 switch. > > http://www.ciscosystems.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps380/ps4874/ > product_data_sheet09186a008010e5c5.pdf > Indeed, I stand corrected. thanks for claryfing.. > (Product specs on page 5, not exactly spelled out that is how it is, > having the WAN port at 10Mbps pretty much makes it so). > > > If you are expecting better than 10Mbps speeds, you do have to be > careful of the Cisco low-end, older gear. Not until the ISR/ISR2 gear > is throughput approaching something people are expecting out of it > now-a-days for run of the mill networking requirements. > > Cisco is not known for speedy boxes. If you want tons of features, and > super reliability, then cisco is great. If you are expecting > throughput or vendor interoperability (ie. especially IPSec VPN > setups), then Cisco is not one to look at. I'm not about speed, this router (and probably more to come, yay ebay) is to help me learn the basics of IOS and more. They will not be used in any production environment but mainly in my small home network. -- * has started to scramble (Stargate)
From: bod43 on 21 Feb 2010 08:22
On 21 Feb, 11:21, Jan <cvega66...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Doug McIntyre <mer...(a)geeks.org> wrote innews:4b80bf6d$0$50147$8046368a(a)newsreader.iphouse.net: Good that you got it working. I have not investigated your version vs ram but for sure not all images will run on all 830s due to insufficient RAM. If presssed for features you can do - iomem-percent 5 !<-- from memory so likely syntax wrong. This re-allocates the memory between io memory which is (usually?) statically allocated at startup for interface bufferes and the like, and normal working memory. Unless you have a *very* large number of interfaces you can safely allocate more to IO. On an 831 these extra interfaces would be virtual ones. You can check with sh mem before you do it. Once done, you can maybe try a network boot (tftp) of the new image. This way if it fails you do not have to muck around too much recovering. I have sucessfully run images for which there was "not enough memory" in the past. You could also network boot an image for which you did not have enough flash. sh ver Cisco 877W (MPC8272) processor (revision 0x200) with 118784K/12288K bytes of memory. Looks like I have 10% IO memory. otl-hr-dscott#sh mem Head Total(b) Used(b) Free(b) Lowest(b) Largest(b) Processor 83099124 70676188 29167912 41508276 40677708 39169972 I/O 7400000 12582912 3916428 8666484 8515712 8535164 I can for sure safely switch to 5%. IO used - about 4M IO allocated - about 12M As I said this is for most configurations statically allocated. I guess that for a dialler host with a lot of virtual interfaces it might change once booted. Not sure. |