Catalyst 4500 Redundancy
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by PurpleServerMonkey on August 23, 2008, 8:31 am
Please log in for more thread options We currently have a single Cisco Catalyst 4510 with dual supervior IV modules and dual power supplied. It's central to our network with workgroup switches and servers connecting to it. My question is how internally redundant is a Cisco 4510? Basically investigating our options in making the core more fault tolerant but haven't found a lot of information around what could go wrong with a 4510. Trying to decide whether we should add another 4500 series switch to the core or upgrade to something like a 6500. Thanks in advance for your feedback. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Stephen on August 23, 2008, 2:15 pm
Please log in for more thread options On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 05:31:50 -0700 (PDT), PurpleServerMonkey tolerate loss of most things as long as your network design does not depend on a single I/O blade. >Basically investigating our options in making the core more fault
>tolerant but haven't found a lot of information around what could go >wrong with a 4510. Trying to decide whether we should add another 4500 >series switch to the core or upgrade to something like a 6500. The old joke is that it is not resilient until it could survive a nutter with a sledgehammer :) - but not many sites meet that spec... 6500 gets you more of everything - bandwidth and flexibility mainly but you also get Netflow on some setups which might be importantm and better inservice upgrade - but 1 box has inherent limitations. so i would go for 2 4510s as dual star points for the network - even if they do not have dual sups. 1 thing that does limit a 4500 is that there is "only" 6 Gbps of bandwidth between each blade and the Sup - might be an issue depending on your traffic patterns. >
--
>Thanks in advance for your feedback. Regards stephen_hope@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Merv on August 23, 2008, 3:22 pm
Please log in for more thread options
also keep in mind software failures ... If you have or can get the budget, then 2 switches is the way to go to improve the redundancy of your network along with dual homing of course | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by PurpleServerMonkey on August 23, 2008, 11:04 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 05:31:50 -0700 (PDT), PurpleServerMonkey
> > >We currently have a single Cisco Catalyst 4510 with dual supervior IV
> >modules and dual power supplied. It's central to our network with > >workgroup switches and servers connecting to it. >
> >My question is how internally redundant is a Cisco 4510?
>
> there are backplane traces to both Sups from each card, so you can > tolerate loss of most things as long as your network design does not > depend on a single I/O blade. > > >Basically investigating our options in making the core more fault
> >tolerant but haven't found a lot of information around what could go > >wrong with a 4510. Trying to decide whether we should add another 4500 > >series switch to the core or upgrade to something like a 6500. >
> The old joke is that it is not resilient until it could survive a > nutter with a sledgehammer :) - but not many sites meet that spec... > > 6500 gets you more of everything - bandwidth and flexibility mainly > but you also get Netflow on some setups which might be importantm and > better inservice upgrade - but 1 box has inherent limitations. > > so i would go for 2 4510s as dual star points for the network - even > if they do not have dual sups. > > 1 thing that does limit a 4500 is that there is "only" =A06 Gbps of > bandwidth between each blade and the Sup - might be an issue depending > on your traffic patterns. > > >Thanks in advance for your feedback.
>
> -- > Regards > > stephen_h...@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl Thanks for the info. We have deployed everything across multiple line cards so we have been rather happy with the single switch however we are going through the process of eliminating single points of failure. Budget isn't a problem so we might look at a 6500 series device so that we can go to 10GE modules. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Scott Perry on August 25, 2008, 9:22 am
Please log in for more thread options
Check your supervisor module failover configuration. Just because there are two supervisor cards does not mean that the best failover method possible happen. One failover method waits for the second supervisor module to boot while stateful switchover (SSO) quickly moves to the new supervisor card. Another failure when only the one modular switch is used, other than the software crashing, is a backplane failure. The idea of having 2 switches is good, especially when an etherchannel can interconnect them, except for all of the hosts which formerly connected to a single switch. That might be a problem to move in the event of a failure. One solution is to have single homed hosts connect to a third switch with dual uplinks into both 4500s. ----- Scott Perry Indianapolis, IN ----- > On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 05:31:50 -0700 (PDT), PurpleServerMonkey
> > >We currently have a single Cisco Catalyst 4510 with dual supervior IV
> >modules and dual power supplied. It's central to our network with > >workgroup switches and servers connecting to it. >
> >My question is how internally redundant is a Cisco 4510?
>
> there are backplane traces to both Sups from each card, so you can > tolerate loss of most things as long as your network design does not > depend on a single I/O blade. > > >Basically investigating our options in making the core more fault
> >tolerant but haven't found a lot of information around what could go > >wrong with a 4510. Trying to decide whether we should add another 4500 > >series switch to the core or upgrade to something like a 6500. >
> The old joke is that it is not resilient until it could survive a > nutter with a sledgehammer :) - but not many sites meet that spec... > > 6500 gets you more of everything - bandwidth and flexibility mainly > but you also get Netflow on some setups which might be importantm and > better inservice upgrade - but 1 box has inherent limitations. > > so i would go for 2 4510s as dual star points for the network - even > if they do not have dual sups. > > 1 thing that does limit a 4500 is that there is "only" 6 Gbps of > bandwidth between each blade and the Sup - might be an issue depending > on your traffic patterns. > > >Thanks in advance for your feedback.
>
> -- > Regards > > stephen_h...@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl Thanks for the info. We have deployed everything across multiple line cards so we have been rather happy with the single switch however we are going through the process of eliminating single points of failure. Budget isn't a problem so we might look at a 6500 series device so that we can go to 10GE modules. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Catalyst 4500 Redundancy | August 23, 2008, 8:31 am |
| redundancy and load balancing between catalyst 3524-XL and catalyst 3548-XL | May 12, 2008, 11:44 am |
| Which RAM for 4500 (Router, not Catalyst) | November 12, 2006, 4:56 am |
| Multicast routing with Catalyst 4500 | August 31, 2005, 9:07 am |
| Need to get detail on traffic on Catalyst 4500 | April 3, 2008, 11:56 am |
| Agrregation on 4500 | August 15, 2007, 7:45 am |
| 4500 Chassis | September 5, 2007, 11:18 am |
| 4500 Supervisor Cards | August 23, 2005, 10:13 pm |
| 4500 RSPAN ?? Does it work? | January 30, 2006, 4:06 pm |
| Enabling ssh server on cat 4500 | July 7, 2006, 9:15 am |
| Difference between 4500 and 4900. | August 21, 2006, 1:08 pm |
| police not working on 4500 | November 1, 2006, 12:21 pm |
| isp redundancy | January 28, 2006, 1:43 am |
| grp=b sso redundancy | October 4, 2006, 1:33 pm |
| Redundancy | February 6, 2007, 7:38 am |
>modules and dual power supplied. It's central to our network with
>workgroup switches and servers connecting to it.
>
>My question is how internally redundant is a Cisco 4510?
>