From: Adam Crisp (adam.crisp@totalise.co.uk)
Date: Tue Dec 17 2002 - 15:54:35 GMT-3
The CPU utilisation points on a cat switch are indicative of LED activity
among other things.
Rest assurred that the backplane can swallow whatever you throw at it.
inccidently I've got three switchs in the trunk and my cpu is 1%
Adam
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
bobdu11@cox.net
Sent: 17 December 2002 17:51
To: Colin McNamara; Larry Letterman; Ronald Fugate
Cc: Chuck Church; Bob Sinclair; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Re: Gigastack - What is the point?
> Sure, that's what they want ya to believe. In a Layer 2 heavy
environment, if for some reason a 3524 becomes a transient layer 2 switch,
it'll smoke. Trust me on this one......BOb
> From: "Colin McNamara" <colin@extrateam.com>
> Date: 2002/12/17 Tue AM 10:59:44 EST
> To: <bobdu11@cox.net>,
> "Larry Letterman" <lletterm@cisco.com>,
> "Ronald Fugate" <RFugate@amdocs.com>
> CC: "Chuck Church" <ccie8776@rochester.rr.com>,
> "Bob Sinclair" <bsin@cox.net>,
> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Subject: RE: Re: Gigastack - What is the point?
>
> There are multiple cpu's on a 35xx and 29xx switch.
> I got freaked out by the same thing, did some checking and saw that it was
actually normal.
>
>
> Thank you,
> Colin McNamara
> Office 925-251-0174
> Cell 925-216-0758
> CCNP, CCDA
> CQS IP Telephony Design
> CQS IP Telephony Support
> CQS IP Telephony Operations
> Cisco Wireless Lan Design Specialist
> Cisco Wireless Lan Support Specialist
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bobdu11@cox.net [mailto:bobdu11@cox.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 2:39 AM
> To: Larry Letterman; Ronald Fugate
> Cc: 'Chuck Church'; Bob Sinclair; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Re: Gigastack - What is the point?
>
> Also, take a 35xx series switch, plug it in and connect it to another
switch via trunk and then take a look at the CPU Processor. Even with no
users attached to it and only running spanning tree it sits at around 37%.
The box needs alot of work....We use them but only because the cost savings
against a chasis base switch dictates, but from an engineering standpoint,
can't stand em !!!.....bobdu1
> >
> > From: Larry Letterman <lletterm@cisco.com>
> > Date: 2002/12/17 Tue AM 02:15:24 EST
> > To: Ronald Fugate <RFugate@amdocs.com>
> > CC: "'Chuck Church'" <ccie8776@rochester.rr.com>,
> > Bob Sinclair
> > <bsin@cox.net>, ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: Gigastack - What is the point?
> >
> > 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