[c-nsp] Redundancy vs. Paranoia

[Arturo Servin]

Andre Beck wrote:

>Hi,
>
>On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 11:44:31AM -0600, John Neiberger wrote:
>  
>
>>I'm toying around with a handful of designs and I'm trying to get a
>>better feel for the level of redundancy that would be considered sane so
>>I thought I'd check here for some opinions. The designs in question
>>generally deal with 6500s, 7600s, and 7200s, and the goal is to design a
>>redundant routing and switching system with excellent failover
>>characteristics. However, things can quickly get out of hand and I think
>>they end up becoming more complex than necessary.
>>
>>Here's one of the things I'm pondering: how do I decide which is
>>"better", a single 6513 with dual sups and dual power supplies or two
>>6513s? At what point do you jump from a single box to two boxes? Does it
>>make sense to even bother with making two separate boxes fully
>>redundant?
>>    
>>
>
>In certain situations, it's better to have two switches with only one
>CPU than to have one (or for that matter, two) with redundant CPUs
>when one CPU fails. Interesting discussions of this kind are detailed
>nicely in the two HA Campus Design papers at www.cisco.com/go/srnd so
>you might have a look there.
>
>HTH,
>Andre.
>  
>
    I will go with two boxes. We have both designs and I can tell you 
that I sleep better in the ones with to 2 identical boxes doing the same 
work (switching and routing) maybe balancing, but 100% redundant one of 
other. I can tell you some nigthmare with networks with a big switch 
with redundant processor cards, redudant power supplies and even one 
case of a CSS with doble blackpane (it supposed to have it).

Best Regards,
-as

-- 

Remote Config, The Remote Configuration Company
http://www.remoteconfig.net
Global Service Offices
contact at remoteconfig.net