I've had pretty good success doing this in the past, however, I've run
double the density and split it over two racks.
Ie, 24 Servers per rack, so a 48port switch per rack, with 48 ties
between the rack to tie it all together, each server would hit the
switch in it's own rack, then tie over to the adjacent rack.
Idea generally behind this was to have the servers/switches on
opposing phases to eliminate power problems, without having to get
Dual Power supplies in the switches themselves.
-Shane
On 29/08/2008, at 6:45 PM, Dean Smith wrote:
Surely 2 basic Switches - With Servers dual homed across giving you
independent uplinks to the core, dual control planes and dual power
etc
gives far better resilience at the price point than a simple switch
with an
extra PSU ?
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gert Doering
Sent: 29 August 2008 08:34
To: Pete Templin
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Few questions regarding fixed vs modular and
when which
is better.
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:56:51AM -0500, Pete Templin wrote:
Have you looked at their product line lately? I attended one of
their
LAN Switching Update events, and learned a lot about their new
products, such as 1U 3560E models with 24 or 48 10/100/1000 ports and
two X2 10G uplinks and dual power. Might that suffice?
Still "full L3" with the L3 price tag.
Something like a 2960G-24TC with dual power would be cool.
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fax: +49-89-35655025
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
