-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
Update Arista7060X6-PE 256x200G mmu configuration. #19570
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Changes from 1 commit
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file was deleted.
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ | ||
{%- set default_cable = '5m' %} | ||
|
||
{%- include 'buffer_ports.j2' %} | ||
|
||
{%- macro generate_buffer_pool_and_profiles() %} | ||
"BUFFER_POOL": { | ||
"ingress_lossless_pool": { | ||
"size": "121964196", | ||
"type": "ingress", | ||
"mode": "dynamic", | ||
"xoff": "29520896" | ||
}, | ||
"egress_lossless_pool": { | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. should we just say this is egress_pool? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. i do not know if other repo (swss/sonic-utilitie) make any assumption on the name, we need to check that. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. yes, things like qos tests are currently assuming the name while grabing the configuration, changing the name will cause these tests to break at this moment... |
||
"size": "121964196", | ||
"type": "egress", | ||
"mode": "static" | ||
} | ||
}, | ||
"BUFFER_PROFILE": { | ||
"ingress_lossy_profile": { | ||
"pool": "ingress_lossless_pool", | ||
"size": "0", | ||
"static_th": "167546528" | ||
}, | ||
"egress_lossy_profile": { | ||
"pool": "egress_lossless_pool", | ||
"size": "1778", | ||
"dynamic_th": "1" | ||
}, | ||
"egress_lossless_profile": { | ||
"pool": "egress_lossless_pool", | ||
"size": "0", | ||
"static_th": "125995684" | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. why is this larger than the egress_lossless pool size? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I checked the configuration and also the update today. This setting is indeed larger than egress pool. I have replied the CSP case to confirm the reason, hopefully will get answers soon. |
||
} | ||
}, | ||
{%- endmacro %} |
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ | ||
{%- set default_cable = '5m' %} | ||
|
||
{%- include 'buffer_ports.j2' %} | ||
|
||
{%- macro generate_buffer_pool_and_profiles() %} | ||
"BUFFER_POOL": { | ||
"ingress_lossless_pool": { | ||
"size": "121964196", | ||
"type": "ingress", | ||
"mode": "dynamic", | ||
"xoff": "29520896" | ||
}, | ||
"egress_lossless_pool": { | ||
"size": "121964196", | ||
"type": "egress", | ||
"mode": "static" | ||
} | ||
}, | ||
"BUFFER_PROFILE": { | ||
"ingress_lossy_profile": { | ||
"pool": "ingress_lossless_pool", | ||
"size": "0", | ||
"static_th": "167546528" | ||
}, | ||
"egress_lossy_profile": { | ||
"pool": "egress_lossless_pool", | ||
"size": "1778", | ||
"dynamic_th": "1" | ||
}, | ||
"egress_lossless_profile": { | ||
"pool": "egress_lossless_pool", | ||
"size": "0", | ||
"static_th": "125995684" | ||
} | ||
}, | ||
{%- endmacro %} |
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ | ||
# PG lossless profiles. | ||
# speed cable size xon xoff threshold xon_offset | ||
10000 5m 1248 2288 35776 0 2288 | ||
25000 5m 1248 2288 53248 0 2288 | ||
40000 5m 1248 2288 66560 0 2288 | ||
50000 5m 1248 2288 90272 0 2288 | ||
100000 5m 18796 3556 300990 -2 3556 | ||
200000 5m 18796 3556 300990 -2 3556 | ||
400000 5m 18796 3556 300990 -2 3556 | ||
10000 40m 1248 2288 37024 0 2288 | ||
25000 40m 1248 2288 53248 0 2288 | ||
40000 40m 1248 2288 71552 0 2288 | ||
50000 40m 1248 2288 96096 0 2288 | ||
100000 40m 18796 3556 300990 -2 3556 | ||
200000 40m 18796 3556 300990 -2 3556 | ||
400000 40m 18796 3556 300990 -2 3556 | ||
10000 300m 1248 2288 46176 0 2288 | ||
25000 300m 1248 2288 79040 0 2288 | ||
40000 300m 1248 2288 108160 0 2288 | ||
50000 300m 1248 2288 141856 0 2288 | ||
100000 300m 18796 3556 300990 -2 3556 | ||
200000 300m 18796 3556 300990 -2 3556 | ||
400000 300m 18796 3556 300990 -2 3556 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
instead of lossless pool, should we say this is ingress_pool?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
currently, the qos tests are using these names for grabbing the configurations, so changing the name will cause them to break.