I haven't noticed an impact on performance. One of our CASs is IB RIP
with 1500 simultaneous users.
Eric J. Kenny
Network Analyst
Marist College
3399 North Rd.
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
845.575.3820
From:
"Heller, Josh" <[log in to unmask]>
To:
[log in to unmask]
Date:
12/09/09 03:29 PM
Subject:
Re: NAC 4.7.1 Upgrade - High CPU on CAS
Sent by:
Cisco Clean Access Users and Administrators
<[log in to unmask]>
So are there any ramifications seen yet with regard to the high CPU
utilization with kclick?
Thank you,
Josh Heller
Sr. Network Analyst
Information Technology
Kutztown University
610.683.4930
-----Original Message-----
From: Cisco Clean Access Users and Administrators [
mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mike Diggins
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 9:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: NAC 4.7.1 Upgrade - High CPU on CAS
This is my production CAS (3140) running 4.1.6 lightly loaded:
[root@cas ~]# top
top - 23:12:17 up 464 days, 3:18, 1 user, load average: 0.17, 0.21,
0.18
Tasks: 63 total, 2 running, 61 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 1.7% us, 6.7% sy, 0.0% ni, 69.7% id, 2.3% wa, 10.0% hi, 9.7%
si
Mem: 1035588k total, 962836k used, 72752k free, 42060k buffers
Swap: 2040244k total, 2876k used, 2037368k free, 588684k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
2835 root 15 0 0 0 0 S 8.7 0.0 25757:49 kclick
This is my test CAS (3140) running 4.7.1 with NO load:
[root@test-cas ~]# top
top - 21:41:25 up 12:02, 1 user, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00
Tasks: 71 total, 3 running, 68 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 0.3%us, 49.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 50.7%si,
0.0%st
Mem: 904184k total, 462560k used, 441624k free, 90544k buffers
Swap: 4192956k total, 0k used, 4192956k free, 261208k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
2726 root 25 0 0 0 0 R 99.5 0.0 718:37.89 kclick
Is anyone running 4.7.1 on one of the newer appliances like the 3310 or
3350? If so, is the same thing happening?
-Mike
On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Mike King wrote:
> I haven't looked at the command line of a CAS in a year or so, but if I
remember correctly, on the CAS it was always normal for the kclick to
replace the CPU idler.
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Kyle Torkelson
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Mike
> We are exact same as you...Virtual Gateway In Band on two 3140's.
Whether I have 0, 50 or 200 users online, kclick is always using 95-99%.
TAC told me it
> was nothing out of the ordinary...
>
> I'm still skeptical though...
>
> Kyle Torkelson
> University of Sioux Falls
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cisco Clean Access Users and Administrators [
mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mike Diggins
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 10:02 AM
> To: [log in to unmask][root@test-cas1 ~]# top
> Subject: NAC 4.7.1 Upgrade - High CPU on CAS
>
> Just upgraded my test NAC system (1x3140 CAM, 1x3140 CAS) from 4.6.1 to
> 4.7.1. The "kclick" process on the CAS is taking 99% of my CPU, and
there
> is nobody on the system! I recall someone else posting with this same
> issue. I'm in Virtual Gateway Inband mode. Did anyone find a cause?
>
>
|
