in my past experience it's always to let a device just keep running.  I was
under the impression and always looked at it and compared it to all other
electrical devices.  constant power is less damaging to any electrical
equiptment that continuous off/on.  Much like the life span of a light bulb.
As we know CAT 6509's are expensive light bulbs.

Chris

Puckette, Larry (TIFPC) wrote:
> 
> Hello again group. I have another question to propose to you.
> But first an
> updated history of the issue at hand. We have a 6509 that
> serves as the core
> to a server farm that has both NT and Unix boxes on it. In the
> beginning
> there were infrequent link drops between servers and the switch
> that had no
> pattern to isolate a card or VLAN, etc...   and then frequency
> increased to
> be a constant problem. Sniffer information gave very little to
> hang our hat
> on, with 99% of it's findings being 2 messages. Too many
> retransmissions TCP
> and octets/s: current value 932,384. High Threshold=500,000. An
> example of
> the logging buffer on the switch's interesting messages were;
> IPPS6509> (enable) show logging buffer
> 2002 Jan 16 02:15:44 %PAGP-5-PORTFROMSTP:Port 8/23 left bridge
> port 8/23
> 2002 Jan 16 02:15:49 %PAGP-5-PORTTOSTP:Port 8/22 joined bridge
> port 8/22
> 2002 Jan 16 02:15:49 %PAGP-5-PORTFROMSTP:Port 6/23 left bridge
> port 6/23
> 2002 Jan 16 02:15:50 %SPANTREE-6-PORTFWD: Port 8/22 state in
> VLAN 172
> changed to forwarding
> 2002 Jan 16 02:16:01 %PAGP-5-PORTTOSTP:Port 8/23 joined bridge
> port 8/23
> 2002 Jan 16 02:16:02 %SPANTREE-6-PORTFWD: Port 8/23 state in
> VLAN 172
> changed to forwarding
> 2002 Jan 16 02:16:06 %PAGP-5-PORTTOSTP:Port 6/23 joined bridge
> port 6/23
> 2002 Jan 16 02:16:07 %SPANTREE-6-PORTFWD: Port 6/23 state in
> VLAN 172
> changed to forwarding
> 2002 Jan 16 03:41:28 %PAGP-5-PORTFROMSTP:Port 8/17 left bridge
> port 8/17
> 2002 Jan 16 03:41:29 %PAGP-5-PORTFROMSTP:Port 7/16 left bridge
> port 7/16
> 2002 Jan 16 03:41:35 %SYS-6-CFG_CHG:Global block changed by
> SNMP/216.141.33.71/
> 2002 Jan 16 03:41:47 %PAGP-5-PORTTOSTP:Port 8/17 joined bridge
> port 8/17
> 2002 Jan 16 03:41:47 %PAGP-5-PORTTOSTP:Port 7/16 joined bridge
> port 7/16
> 2002 Jan 16 03:41:48 %SPANTREE-6-PORTFWD: Port 7/16 state in
> VLAN 172
> changed to forwarding
> 2002 Jan 16 03:41:48 %SPANTREE-6-PORTFWD: Port 8/17 state in
> VLAN 172
> changed to forwarding
> 2002 Jan 16 03:44:27 %PAGP-5-PORTFROMSTP:Port 8/17 left bridge
> port 8/17
> 2002 Jan 16 03:44:43 %PAGP-5-PORTTOSTP:Port 8/17 joined bridge
> port 8/17
> 2002 Jan 16 03:44:44 %SPANTREE-6-PORTFWD: Port 8/17 state in
> VLAN 172
> changed to forwarding
> 
> but these had no consistency over time as to what port or group
> of ports
> were experiencing this.
> 
> some interesting 'show tech' information was;
> udp:
>         0 incomplete headers
>         0 bad data length fields
>         2 bad checksums
>         20839 socket overflows
>         108568195 no such ports
> 
> tcp: 111664 completely duplicate packets (6407 bytes) 
> 111129 keepalive timeouts
> 
> Ok, if you're still with me... It was dictated that we REPLACE
> the switch by
> the customer but of course Cisco did not go for that and we did
> a scheduled
> reboot on the switch and all problems have cleared. Now the
> customer wants a
> bi-monthly reboot of this switch scheduled to prevent the
> problem from
> occurring. My questions are: Is there any technical reason that
> these
> scheduled reboots would be a bad idea? (politics dictate that
> logical
> reasons don't apply) Does anyone know of  a previously proven
> fix for this
> problem that has documentation that could be used in
> discussions of whether
> these scheduled reboots are necessary?
> 
> Thank you all for any help,, in advance.
>       
>       
> Larry Puckette
> Network Analyst CCNA,MCP,LANCP
> Temple Inland
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 512/434-1838
> 
> 




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=32463&t=32449
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to