From: Jake (jakeczyz@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Dec 20 2002 - 19:41:43 GMT-3
Are you certain? I've never seen one of our 3500XL's below 30%. Although all of our
6500's at the access layer peak at 1%... ;-)
J
--- Adam Crisp <adam.crisp@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
> 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 - 17:21:50 GMT-3