On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 08:32:45PM +0000, Joe Hughes wrote: > I've read the VC Best practice guide and in all their examples, they have > two sets of 2-switch VCs at the aggregation layer - which is making me > wonder if a single VC (of two switches) and treated as one switch poses more > of a risk than simply two distinct switches. I'm guessing if you have two > links back from each rack - each to a different member of the VC, then the > 'risks' are pretty much the same as having two separate switches?
The risks are the same in terms of physical failures, but having a
single VC doesn't insulate you from control-plane failures. If you
need to sustain a control plane failure and the extra interfaces are
worth the cost, don't VC. If that's too expensive, or a control-plane
failure isn't something you care about surviving, go with the VC.
> In terms of software upgrades - is it possible to upgrade one member
> at a time (as you would in a non-VC setup) so as to not interrupt
> connectivity from the access\rack switches?
Nope - you have to upgrade the whole chassis and reboot it when you do
an upgrade. This works quite smoothly.
> Are there any other situations\operations on a VC that would take
> both switches offline - further making it more sense to either have
> two switches, or two sets of 2 members VCs?
JUNOS bugs - by far, the #1 source of downtime in our EX4200s VCs.
If your aggregation layer is supposed to be HA, I'd keep the two
apart.
Ross
--
Ross Vandegrift
r...@kallisti.us
"If the fight gets hot, the songs get hotter. If the going gets tough,
the songs get tougher."
--Woody Guthrie
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
