FW: [c-nsp] Cisco Gigabit Ethernet Switch Module (CGESM)fortheHPBladeSystem

Mon Oct 10 07:51:42 EDT 2005

These are potential multicast sources. If we have sources multicasting 
above 100 Mb, then we need to have
all the sinks running gig as well. And we're not ready for that (would 
just give the devs an excuse to design their software
even less efficiently).

The buffer overflow is occurring on both switches in the enclosure, and 
it's happening with only 1.15Mb of mcast traffic.
BADNESS.

Did anyone who's deployed these test them very much? I'm really not one 
for this 'it just works' stuff...

Internet
ltd at cisco.com
10/10/2005 11:26

To
Christian MACNEVIN
cc
cisco-nsp
Subject
Re: FW: [c-nsp] Cisco Gigabit Ethernet Switch   Module 
(CGESM)fortheHPBladeSystem

can't help you on support but ...

regarding your first question, the internal ports are 10/100/1000.  why
would the 'internal' ports be negotiating 100 Mbps and not GbE?
if the individual blades are only capable of 100 Mbps (not sure if that
is the case or not..), then are you saying that 'auto-negotiate' on both
sides (blade & switch) isn't doing the right thing?

regarding your second question, many 'blade centre' chassis, there are
significant heat dissipation & power restrictions on what can be used.
i believe this is the most significant factor in the choice of what
model switch was used.

cheers,

lincoln.

cheers,

lincoln.

christian.macnevin at uk.bnpparibas.com wrote:
> It now seems that our guys testing the CGESMs with the most current
> feature set are seeing that they don't seem to permit
> manual config of 100/full (and subsequently negotiate down to half in 
many
> cases) and they're seeing nasty buffer overruns.
>
> Support doesn't seem to be picking us up here, either.
>
> I assume there's no HP people on this list, but why on earth did they
> chose a 2900 to repackage? These blade enclosures
> may be used in less than critical arenas by some ISPs, but if I told you
> the projected number we're looking at over the next year,
> and the seriousness of the calculations going on, you'd think it was a
> joke they hadn't taken things a bit more seriously.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Internet
> nick.nauwelaerts at thomson.com
> Sent by: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> 05/10/2005 08:26
>
> To
> cisco-nsp
> cc
>
> Subject
> RE: FW: [c-nsp] Cisco Gigabit Ethernet Switch Module
> (CGESM)fortheHPBladeSystem
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
>> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Dave Temkin
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 08:17 PM
>> To: Kevin Graham
>> Cc: Olav.Langeland at active24.com; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> Subject: Re: FW: [c-nsp] Cisco Gigabit Ethernet Switch Module
>> (CGESM)fortheHPBladeSystem
>>
>> I found it's easier to skip spanning tree.  Use etherchannels
>> from each
>> switch back to the core (or wherever) for redundancy, and to get
>> cross-switch redundancy have the servers use fail-on-fault
>> teaming to fail
>> over to the other switch (which would then be connected to
>> your alternate
>> core switch) in the event of a failure.
>>
>
> Do you run "spanning-tree etherchannel guard misconfig" on your core
> when you use etherchannel links? Does it work as advertised?
>
> // nick
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
>
>
> This message and any attachments (the "message") is
> intended solely for the addressees and is confidential.
> If you receive this message in error, please delete it and
> immediately notify the sender. Any use not in accord with
> its purpose, any dissemination or disclosure, either whole
> or partial, is prohibited except formal approval. The internet
> can not guarantee the integrity of this message.
> BNP PARIBAS (and its subsidiaries) shall (will) not
> therefore be liable for the message if modified.
>
> 
**********************************************************************************************
>
> BNP Paribas Private Bank London Branch is authorised
> by CECEI & AMF and is regulated by the Financial Services
> Authority for the conduct of its investment business in
> the United Kingdom.
>
> BNP Paribas Securities Services London Branch is authorised
> by CECEI & AMF and is regulated by the Financial Services
> Authority for the conduct of its investment business in
> the United Kingdom.
>
> BNP Paribas Fund Services UK Limited is authorised and
> regulated by the Financial Services Authority
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
> 