[c-nsp] GE Servers in data center with teaming interfaces

[chris stand]

>
>   7. Re: GE Servers in data center with teaming interfaces
>      (Nick Hilliard)
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 16:33:36 +0000
> From: Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org>
> To: Arne Svennevik <arne.svennevik at met.no>
> Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] GE Servers in data center with teaming interfaces
> Message-ID: <4D371260.3090305 at foobar.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> On 19/01/2011 12:00, Arne Svennevik wrote:
> >> On 18/01/2011 22:27, chris stand wrote:
> >>> Do any of you support / host servers from GE ?
> >>> Anyone have any of them in LACP port channels ?
> >>
> >> Yes. Be very careful with your switch uplinks if you do this, because
> >> applications can be badly behaved and can cause serious problems due
> >> to microbursting.
> >
> > Would you mind to elaborate this? Along with some pointers on what to
> look for to detect it?
>
> This was a very badly worded reply to the OP - I had something specific in
> mind when writing it, and then clicked "send" before reading the nonsense I
> had written.
> ...
> There are generally two reasons for implementing LAGs: resilience and
> capacity.  If you're implementing them for pure resilience and your
> trafficGert Doering posted a good example of this a couple of months ago:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net/msg33606.html
>
> Nick
>
>
> It is for redundancy to a couple of Cisco FEXs , bandwidth is not issue,
loss of 1 link is.