I literally (as in about an hour ago) configured my last VMware 5.1U1 switch to use LACP to my Cisco 6513. :-)
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Matthew W. Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > Stefan, > > It looks like LACP is newly supported on 5.1. It wasn't there in 5.0. > > http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?language=en_US&cmd=displayKC&externalId=2034277 > > > --Matt Ross > Ephrata School District > > > Stefan Jafs , 12/2/2013 1:30 PM: > > Are you telling me that since I’m using VMware I can’t use lacp? > > > > __________________________________ > > Stefan Jafs > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Joseph L. Casale > Sent: December 2, 2013 12:28 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [NTSysADM] RE: To trunk or lacp > > > > Vmware hasn't for some time supported 802.3ad, migrate those trunks to > "trunk" from "lacp". > > This may have changed in 5.5 (no time to look). > > jlc > > ________________________________ > > From: [email protected] on behalf of Stefan Jafs > Sent: Monday, December 2, 2013 9:48 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [NTSysADM] To trunk or lacp > > > > Ok, so I had a network outage yesterday, thankfully on Sunday, so no > productivity last. Here is my setup: > > > > All HP Switches my Core switch is an 8212zl and my physical VMware serves > and NetApp storage, connected to 2 stacked 3800 switches, they are then > trunked with 2 * 10G links and 2 * 1 gig copper as failover to the core > switch. Here is what happened, at just after 2PM I started getting e-mail of > servers off-line for more than 5 min, and the list just kept growing. I had > previously just done some UPS power balancing and had to shut down a few > items for the move. I figured maybe I disrupted some power cable as I did > the changes. I drove back and physically checked everything, everything > looked good I could ping the gateway from some servers but not from others, > the whole thing was very strange, finally we figured it out, one of the 10 > Gb trunk had failed but the core switch did not realized it was down, that’s > what caused the strange network behaviour. > > > > Ok so now my monitoring guys, says well if it had been configured as lacp > there would have been no outage and he says that they configure all switch > to switch trunking with lacp. I asked my networking guy that did the initial > configuration and his comment is: > > > > LACP is industry standard and used widely when you interface servers to > switches or different vendors switches / other networking gear. When you > have same make (HP or say Cisco), most folks always use Cisco etherchannel / > portchannel (which also works with HP) or in HP language trunk. I have > never come across anything like this so will not comment that if you have > this kind of issue, then LACP would have prevented. > > > > If there is a fiber issue, then you can have unidirectional link and then it > is UDLD feature with LACP also enabled that helps. But fiber unidirectional > is extremely rare, else why 98% of cisco networks will not use LACP. > > > > The issue here is that you have someone else managing the network and you > use me for help you set up the network, so there will always be a conflict > of interest and differences in viewpoints. > > > > So is there a correct answer here or I was just extremely unlucky with a > hardware failure that did not fail over? > > > > __________________________________ > > Stefan Jafs > >
