Could you/someone elaborate on 'failure of one part is a failure of the stack' ?
I thought Cisco just pushed this construction to get more redundancy/uptime in the network ? We were planning to replace some single switches with a lot of dual-line channels with a cluster of 2 of these 36xx or 37xx switches so we could split the channels over 2 switches and have still connection when one of the switches failed. Reading the recent negative comments on switch stacking I start wondering if this is a wise decision... Wim Holemans Network Services University of Antwerp -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jamie rishaw Sent: vrijdag 14 november 2008 20:55 To: Dale Shaw Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Catalyst 3750 stacks with many members Yeah.. Replace them. With Chassis(es). Stacks are just a bad idea. Failure of one part of the stack is a failure of the stack. A 65xx serves just as well, better even; cheaper, more reliably, and with less BS.. I'm in the middle of tossing (however many letters are, inclusive, between a and s) stacks, moving to 65xx chassis(es) with 10/100 // triplespeed blades... moving to paired '09's. Cue the happy singing birds and obama 'yes we chassis' glory in 3.. 2.. 1.. -j On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Dale Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > Hi all, > > We have a few large (>6 member) cat3750 stacks in our environment, > most in L2 edge/access roles, and most providing PoE to cisco IP > phones. -- ..!google!arpa.com!j _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/