From: Larry Letterman (lletterm@cisco.com)
Date: Tue Dec 17 2002 - 04:15:24 GMT-3
We have a large data center for the engineering of Cisco at the main
Campus, where we have close to
1000 servers, and we wont even entertain the thought of stackables in
the DC...L2 does not scale anywhere
near the range of L3, and the port density of 35XX's does not get close
to a chassis based system....
Ronald Fugate wrote:
>in addition to that:
>
>In a datacenter that; where hundreds of servers (blade servers, usually web environment) are required, the 3548's (or 3550 smi),in a redundant (layer 2) and teaming nics for end nodes, these switches, with gigastacks, are usually within a few feet of each other and are great. The gigastacks offer more flexibility than fiber stacks. The gigastacks can stack to the switches and leave the other gig slot open for other uses (trunks or gig access ports whatever).
>
>In our datacenters the gigastacks were alot more resilient (taking those unmentioned bumps from engineer running cables).
>
>And scalability is a big reason.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chuck Church [mailto:ccie8776@rochester.rr.com]
>Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 8:59 PM
>To: Bob Sinclair; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: Re: Gigastack - What is the point?
>
>
>Bob,
>
> Price is probably a major reason. Last time I checked, the Gigastacks
>are cheaper than SX gbics. Also, a lot of companies stick with 2900 and
>3500s for closets. 4000s and up are considered distribution and core level
>switches, with a price to match. Price per port is much cheaper for 2900s
>and 3500s than a 4006 with sup 2 and line cards. Since most networks tend
>to grow rather than shrink, upgradibility is also a factor. Once you've
>maxed out a 4003 or 4006, you've got a big cost to add another chassis.
>With stackables, it's much cheaper. Of course there are networks out there
>that justify a 4000 or higher at the access layer, but those are special
>circumstances.
>
>Chuck Church
>CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bob Sinclair" <bsin@cox.net>
>To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 8:53 PM
>Subject: OT: Gigastack - What is the point?
>
>
>>Switch gods:
>>
>>Any of you folks installed gigastack 35xx or 29xx? I really don't see
>>
>much
>
>>of an advantage to this technology, so I wonder what I am missing. Sure,
>>you can manage a bunch of switches with one IP address through a graphical
>>interface. BFD.
>>
>>The fast failover and minimal uplinks would be cool if you could stack
>>multiple switches on different floors, but as I read the specs, the
>>
>switches
>
>>must be within 1 meter of each other. If you need multiples of 48 ports
>>
>in
>
>>one closet, why not just use a modular switch?
>>
>>I have read the docs on CCO, but I don't really see what does this
>>technology really buys us, beyond a few corner cases. Any feedback or
>>
>links
>
>>appreciated.
>>
>>Bob Sinclair
>>CCIE #10427
>>.
>>
>.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The information contained in this message is proprietary of Amdocs,
>
>protected from disclosure, and may be privileged.
>
>The information is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s)
>
>of the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
>
>you are hereby notified that any dissemination, use, distribution or copying of
>
>this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
>
>If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
>
>by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
>
>Thank you.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>.
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 17:21:47 GMT-3