networker050184 wrote: » In anything that small I've set up I've never even used QoS on the LAN. Never had any issues. My best practice is to only use features where you truly need them, nothing fancy.
Turgon wrote: » Agree, and it really needs to be tested thoroughly on a reference model first. A lot of people try this 'n' that with QoS with intangible or detremental results.
GT-Rob wrote: » Like your provider putting QoS on your links and missing a zero on one of the statements, effectively rate limiting all our WAN traffic to 300k? Yes, I have since learned QoS CAN cripple your network! haha
GT-Rob wrote: » Im pretty sure you want to trust COS on the trunks, not DSCP. Since the trunks are layer 2, and DSCP markings are layer 3.
pitviper wrote: » Used the same setup for the last six or so sites with no problems – Tested in the lab prior. Overkill probably (though I do want to at least tag on the switches anyways) but good to practice for exam time none the less
GT-Rob wrote: » Like your provider putting QoS on your links and missing a zero on one of the statements, effectively rate limiting all our WAN traffic to 300k?
dtlokee wrote: » If you're really bored and want to read the SRND for QoS it will tell you how to do it. Trust DSCP on uplinks between switches, not COS. Also make sure you fix your COS-DSCP maps on your switches to match the required values (by default most switches map COS 5 to DSCP 40 - this will mess you all up). Be careful with AutoQoS as it's very version dependant, sometimes it enables a priority queue, sometimes not. You should have a priority queue on uplinks along with configuring your shaped and shared (or WRR weights on older switches) accordingly. In something that small it's unlikely that QoS will make anything better but it's very likely that misconfiguring QoS will make things much much worse.
dtlokee wrote: » Yes the whole SRR = shared round robin or shaped round robin (depending on the configuration) is a bit confusing. Basically if you only set the "shared" queue weights then it's shared, if you also configure "shaped" queue weights then it works as shaped to that maximum rate. You may ask "why would I shape traffic?" if you activate the priority queue then it will consume all of the available bandwidth if you don't assign it a shaped weight. so something like this is pretty common: srr-queue bandwidth share 1 70 25 5 srr-queue bandwidth 3 0 0 0 priority-queue out Now where it gets fun is mapping all of your applications to the queues. In this case we are using queue 1 as priority so that should only get voice. Queue 2 has a large portion of the bandwidth and will carry most of our traffic (now we could get into a lengthy discussion on drop thresholds and all - more fodder) but in reality we want our mission critical apps and call signaling in here. Q3 is our default queue - that is all traffic taht was marked with DSCP 0. Q4 is going to be our less than best effort scavenger queue. The value of 3 in the "shaped" command restricts the priority queue to 33% of the bandwidth. Calculating the amount of bandwidth each queue gets is interesting, the priority queue gets 33% the remaining 3 queues get the other 67% broken up according to their weights (70/(70+25+5) (20/(70+25+5) and (5/(70+25+5)).
GT-Rob wrote: » Im confused here. Why DSCP on L2 trunks?