Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] High Availability for 2+1 scenario with Cisco WLCs
Matt, Perhaps obvious reminder: 7.6 gives you AP and client SSO. 7.4 only gives you AP failover. Client SSO is a thing of beauty: We see perhaps 1-2 lost client pings during the fail over. Not that there should ever be failovers, right? I would definitely recommend the 7.6.120.6 engineering version which fixes some major crash issues that Curtis and others have alluded to. Are you going to do 1:1 to different locations for site redundancy? Several of us do HA / 1:1 to different chassis (non-VSS). Kitri -- University of Oregon On 7/18/14, 7:58 AM, Hector J Rios wrote: Matt, We have been running N+1 for quite a while and never had any major issues. In our configuration we had three wireless core locations were only two of those had enough HAs to back up an entire core site. But this summer we are moving to AP and Client SSO for true high availability. N+1 was fine in the past when wireless was not considered mission critical, but today more and more students and professors are relying on wireless and we must have a solution that will have the least impact. SSO promises that. We are running 7.6 Thanks, Hector Rios Louisiana State University *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Ashfield, Matt (NBCC) *Sent:* Thursday, July 17, 2014 7:21 PM *To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU *Subject:* [WIRELESS-LAN] High Availability for 2+1 scenario with Cisco WLCs Hello Up until now, we have had a very distributed approach to our controllers, with no redundancy. We are centralizing our controllers with the idea of having at least 2 5508 WLCs and one High Availability 5508. When we were working with a consultant today, he indicated that his experience in using an HA controller to act as HA for more than one 5508 did not yield good results. He recommended using a 1:1 relationship for controller and HA controller. He did state however this was with 7.4.x code and he hadn't tried it with newer levels of code. I thought I'd check here if anyone has had similar experiences and/or comments about their experience in the N+1 scenario, and if they say improvements or lack of issues with 7.6 code. Any help/advice is appreciated. Thanks Matt ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] High Availability for 2+1 scenario with Cisco WLCs
7.5 actually got us AP and client SSO failover. 7.6 got us the 3702s. Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Mega™, an ATT 4G LTE smartphone div Original message /divdivFrom: Kitri Waterman ki...@uoregon.edu /divdivDate:18/07/2014 12:05 (GMT-06:00) /divdivTo: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU /divdivSubject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] High Availability for 2+1 scenario with Cisco WLCs /divdiv /divMatt, Perhaps obvious reminder: 7.6 gives you AP and client SSO. 7.4 only gives you AP failover. Client SSO is a thing of beauty: We see perhaps 1-2 lost client pings during the fail over. Not that there should ever be failovers, right? I would definitely recommend the 7.6.120.6 engineering version which fixes some major crash issues that Curtis and others have alluded to. Are you going to do 1:1 to different locations for site redundancy? Several of us do HA / 1:1 to different chassis (non-VSS). Kitri -- University of Oregon On 7/18/14, 7:58 AM, Hector J Rios wrote: Matt, We have been running N+1 for quite a while and never had any major issues. In our configuration we had three wireless core locations were only two of those had enough HAs to back up an entire core site. But this summer we are moving to AP and Client SSO for true high availability. N+1 was fine in the past when wireless was not considered mission critical, but today more and more students and professors are relying on wireless and we must have a solution that will have the least impact. SSO promises that. We are running 7.6 Thanks, Hector Rios Louisiana State University From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Ashfield, Matt (NBCC) Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 7:21 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] High Availability for 2+1 scenario with Cisco WLCs Hello Up until now, we have had a very distributed approach to our controllers, with no redundancy. We are centralizing our controllers with the idea of having at least 2 5508 WLCs and one High Availability 5508. When we were working with a consultant today, he indicated that his experience in using an HA controller to act as HA for more than one 5508 did not yield good results. He recommended using a 1:1 relationship for controller and HA controller. He did state however this was with 7.4.x code and he hadn’t tried it with newer levels of code. I thought I’d check here if anyone has had similar experiences and/or comments about their experience in the N+1 scenario, and if they say improvements or lack of issues with 7.6 code. Any help/advice is appreciated. Thanks Matt ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. !DSPAM:911,53c95418157991530112441! ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] High Availability for 2+1 scenario with Cisco WLCs
Correct sir, but them bugs... Kitri -- University of Oregon On 7/18/14, 10:20 AM, Danny Eaton wrote: 7.5 actually got us AP and client SSO failover. 7.6 got us the 3702s. Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Mega™, an ATT 4G LTE smartphone Original message From: Kitri Waterman Date:18/07/2014 12:05 (GMT-06:00) To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] High Availability for 2+1 scenario with Cisco WLCs Matt, Perhaps obvious reminder: 7.6 gives you AP and client SSO. 7.4 only gives you AP failover. Client SSO is a thing of beauty: We see perhaps 1-2 lost client pings during the fail over. Not that there should ever be failovers, right? I would definitely recommend the 7.6.120.6 engineering version which fixes some major crash issues that Curtis and others have alluded to. Are you going to do 1:1 to different locations for site redundancy? Several of us do HA / 1:1 to different chassis (non-VSS). Kitri -- University of Oregon On 7/18/14, 7:58 AM, Hector J Rios wrote: Matt, We have been running N+1 for quite a while and never had any major issues. In our configuration we had three wireless core locations were only two of those had enough HAs to back up an entire core site. But this summer we are moving to AP and Client SSO for true high availability. N+1 was fine in the past when wireless was not considered mission critical, but today more and more students and professors are relying on wireless and we must have a solution that will have the least impact. SSO promises that. We are running 7.6 Thanks, Hector Rios Louisiana State University *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Ashfield, Matt (NBCC) *Sent:* Thursday, July 17, 2014 7:21 PM *To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU *Subject:* [WIRELESS-LAN] High Availability for 2+1 scenario with Cisco WLCs Hello Up until now, we have had a very distributed approach to our controllers, with no redundancy. We are centralizing our controllers with the idea of having at least 2 5508 WLCs and one High Availability 5508. When we were working with a consultant today, he indicated that his experience in using an HA controller to act as HA for more than one 5508 did not yield good results. He recommended using a 1:1 relationship for controller and HA controller. He did state however this was with 7.4.x code and he hadn’t tried it with newer levels of code. I thought I’d check here if anyone has had similar experiences and/or comments about their experience in the N+1 scenario, and if they say improvements or lack of issues with 7.6 code. Any help/advice is appreciated. Thanks Matt ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. !DSPAM:911,53c95418157991530112441! ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
