Bøvre Jon Harald <jon.harald.bo...@hafslund.no> wrote:
>
> We have a number of 3750 stacks with anything from 2 to 8 switches.
>
> Our standard when configuring new stack:
> First switch numbered 9, second switch numbered 8
> Switch # 9 given priority 15 (highest)
>
Interesting, Cisco told us it is generally a bad idea going much above
five switch stacks. Something to do with the fact that at the rear of
the switch you have a token ring-esque system and 40Gbps of backplane
(off the top of my head). In the early code they only had a single
token flying around the switches which caused horrible latency woes I
would imagine, but things improved when they had multiple tokens
rotating through the loop.
Either way, I also thought when an 'interesting' decision had to be made
traffic had to be punted upto the master switch and back down.
Obviously the longer the chain the worse *everything* gets.
However I doubt our users would actually notice. Any reason you do not
split your stack in half? Only curious.
Cheers
--
Alexander Clouter
.sigmonster says: BOFH excuse #330:
quantum decoherence
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
