IllegalOperation
Technical User
I was told to implement 100% end-to-end redundancy (from the distribution switches to the servers).
We have nine racks of servers for this project. Each rack will get a primary access switch, and a secondary access switch. That is a total of 18 access switches. These switches will all have uplinks to two distribution switches. For the servers themselves, we will utilize NIC adapter teaming. The server network adapters will be configured in a primary/secondary relationship. I have an example drawing of how I think one rack would be laid out.
- The two distribution switches are 2960G, 48 ports (already purchased).
- The access switches are 2960G, 24 ports (already purchased).
- There will be a total of five vlans, but only two of them will carry around 90% of the traffic.
- The network will be strictly data. There is no voice traffic.
- There will be a ballpark of around 60 servers (no more than 10 servers on a rack). Almost half of these servers are only there as backups.
- There will be no end-user workstations off any of these switches. This is strictly a server farm.
- I do not have a strong feel of the overall traffic on this network, but I was told that it could pass a few terabytes per day (moderate-low load I suppose?).
I have a number of questions....
1. Can two 2960G switches effeciently handle the stress of connecting to 18 access switches each? There will also be other links on these distribution switches, such as connections to the internet and to the corporate core network.
2. All five vlans will be propagated to all of our racks. I was hoping to balance the traffic by vlan. Make one distribution/access switch the primary link for one vlan - while making the other distribution/access switch the primary link for a different vlan. Is that feasible under my circumstances?
3. Etherchanneling the trunks (that is, having two or more links from a distribution switch to an access switch) would not be possible, because you can only configure six etherchannels per switch total. My distribution switches would have 18 different etherchannels (one channel for each access switch). Am I right in thinking this?
4. Will NIC adaptor teaming on each server effectively work in this scenario, or is there a better solution for redundancy? I read this can be done with Cisco's Link-State Tracking feature.
5. Are there any modification suggestions to my drawing, or is that the best end-to-end redundant method for my situation?
Feel free to ask questions. I look forward to some feedback, and appreciate the help.
We have nine racks of servers for this project. Each rack will get a primary access switch, and a secondary access switch. That is a total of 18 access switches. These switches will all have uplinks to two distribution switches. For the servers themselves, we will utilize NIC adapter teaming. The server network adapters will be configured in a primary/secondary relationship. I have an example drawing of how I think one rack would be laid out.
- The two distribution switches are 2960G, 48 ports (already purchased).
- The access switches are 2960G, 24 ports (already purchased).
- There will be a total of five vlans, but only two of them will carry around 90% of the traffic.
- The network will be strictly data. There is no voice traffic.
- There will be a ballpark of around 60 servers (no more than 10 servers on a rack). Almost half of these servers are only there as backups.
- There will be no end-user workstations off any of these switches. This is strictly a server farm.
- I do not have a strong feel of the overall traffic on this network, but I was told that it could pass a few terabytes per day (moderate-low load I suppose?).
I have a number of questions....
1. Can two 2960G switches effeciently handle the stress of connecting to 18 access switches each? There will also be other links on these distribution switches, such as connections to the internet and to the corporate core network.
2. All five vlans will be propagated to all of our racks. I was hoping to balance the traffic by vlan. Make one distribution/access switch the primary link for one vlan - while making the other distribution/access switch the primary link for a different vlan. Is that feasible under my circumstances?
3. Etherchanneling the trunks (that is, having two or more links from a distribution switch to an access switch) would not be possible, because you can only configure six etherchannels per switch total. My distribution switches would have 18 different etherchannels (one channel for each access switch). Am I right in thinking this?
4. Will NIC adaptor teaming on each server effectively work in this scenario, or is there a better solution for redundancy? I read this can be done with Cisco's Link-State Tracking feature.
5. Are there any modification suggestions to my drawing, or is that the best end-to-end redundant method for my situation?
Feel free to ask questions. I look forward to some feedback, and appreciate the help.