On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 05:18:13PM +0000, Jeffrey Reed wrote: > If you are swaying toward Cisco for any other reason, you can probably > purchase the 2950-24's (without uplinks) as cheap as the VH2402SM and start > working on your Cisco switching skill sets. > > I don't like the VH's very much either, but they are cheap. To make them run > reasonably well, make sure you have the 2.05.00 firmware. In the Bridge > Extension under VLAN learning, make sure you are running in IVL mode. SVL is > evil and causes unpredictable results. Changing from SVL to IVL requires a > reboot. Also make sure you enable IGMP on your VH's 2200's and 6000 to > ensure the multicast traffic isn't broadcast everywhere. This setting is off > by default on all your Cabletron products. > > Once you get all that set, they should behave pretty well. I've seen some > weird spanning tree problems in poorly designed networks, but that may be > getting better with the latest firmware. > > If you're looking for some good, inexpensive switches, check out the HP > Procurves. I've had good results with them and they are a little less than > the VH's.
Yes, this Procurve is the better solution. In fact for all of distribution switches at USU, they are planning to stop using Cisco Switches. What they are going to use or have been using is HP Procurve 2524, and it performs way better than Cisco 2924-XL-EN they currently have, with a very low price, that is $650.00. The biggest concern with Cisco 2924-XL-EN is that whenever one or two of its ports start being utilized at 100 Mbps, the switch just can't handle it. The utilization of the switch jumps to a very high number, and the switch just dying after that. That's why USU doesn't use any desktop switches from Cisco anymore. With the HP Procurve 2524 they can hammer that switch by utilizing that switch at fully 100 Mbps, and the switch can support it without any problem. Besides according to this article it seems what HP 2524 outperforms even Cisco 3500 Series ... http://www.hp.com/rnd/pdfs/Tolly_Jan01.pdf I don't know whether other people have the same problem or not, but that is our experience at USU. I will be really happy to know what other's experience... PS: I don't want to be a troll, but it seems that HP product is better than Cisco product nowadays. For example for the core switch 4006, it can be beaten easily with HP 9304M (http://www.hp.com/rnd/products/routing_switches/switch9304m/overview.htm). It has 128 Gbps backplane with 48 Mpps forwarding speed, while 4006 only has 8 Gbps and 6 Mpps engine (http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/si/casi/ca4000/prodlit/c4ksw_pl.htm). The only different is just Cisco 4006 does support IP Telephony with its inline power, but we don't need that. [this also happens for Cisco 6500 Series, but of course compared to HP 9308M] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49907&t=49812 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
