[c-nsp] Catalyst 3750 stacks with many members

[Holemans Wim]

Could you/someone elaborate on  'failure of one part is a failure of the
stack' ?

I thought Cisco just pushed this construction to get more
redundancy/uptime in the network ?

We were planning to replace some single switches with a lot of dual-line
channels with a cluster of 2 of these 36xx or 37xx switches so we could
split the channels over 2 switches and have still connection when one of
the switches failed. Reading the recent negative comments on switch
stacking I start wondering if this is a wise decision...

Wim Holemans
Network Services
University of Antwerp

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of jamie rishaw
Sent: vrijdag 14 november 2008 20:55
To: Dale Shaw
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Catalyst 3750 stacks with many members

Yeah..

  Replace them. With Chassis(es).

  Stacks are just a bad idea.

  Failure of one part of the stack is a failure of the stack.

  A 65xx serves just as well, better even; cheaper, more reliably, and
with
less BS..

  I'm in the middle of tossing (however many letters are, inclusive,
between
a and s) stacks, moving to 65xx chassis(es) with 10/100 //  triplespeed
blades... moving to paired '09's.  Cue the happy singing birds and obama
'yes we chassis' glory in 3.. 2.. 1..

-j

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Dale Shaw
<dale.shaw+cisco-nsp at gmail.com<dale.shaw%2Bcisco-nsp at gmail.com>
> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We have a few large (>6 member) cat3750 stacks in our environment,
> most in L2 edge/access roles, and most providing PoE to cisco IP
>
phones.




-- 
..!google!arpa.com!j
_______________________________________________
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/