Re: Agrregation on 4500
- From: "Jamie" <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:34:23 +0100
Thanks for the feedback...I am not sure about using loadbalancers at the
moment. What the aim is to have two cables (one from each catalyst) and then
have those two in an etherchannel configuration. If there is anyway of doing
this using just the cat it would be great otherwise I might have to just
stick the two cables on one of the catalysts and configure PAgP with
Etherchannel.
If there is any other ideas would love to hear them.
Thanks.
Jamie
"J.Cottingim" <jcottingim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1187185939.362840.270250@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 15, 6:45 am, "Jamie" <ja...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
I am wondering if anyone can help with the following question:
I have 2 x 4500 Catalysts - I would like to assign a port from each Cat
to a
back up server so as to increase the bandwidth to the server. I know this
can be done with PAgP and Etherchannel so long as you are using ports
from
the same switch (basically Etherchannels' constraint is per switch). Is
there any other method I can use to accomplish port aggregation over two
switches instead of just one?
Thanks for your help in advance, by the way i am running IOS 12.2.
Jamie
Jamie,
The load balancer solution might work if you are doing multiple
backups at one time because the load balancer will balance based on
separate TCP sessions. - but at that point, the load balancer itself
could be the choke point.
If you want to connect to both of the switches to the server for
redundancy purposes, that's fine. But it won't increase "the bandwidth
to the server" unless you do something like what Trendkill suggested -
along with the caveat i mention above.
If your goal is to simply increase bandwidth to the backup server
(because you've verified is a link utilization issue) then I suggest
you use Cisco's Port Aggregation Protocol and Etherchannel.
-JC
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Agrregation on 4500
- From: Scott Perry
- Re: Agrregation on 4500
- References:
- Agrregation on 4500
- From: Jamie
- Re: Agrregation on 4500
- From: J.Cottingim
- Agrregation on 4500
- Prev by Date: Re: Is 1841 underpowered for my connection?
- Next by Date: Re: VLAN Project and Native VLAN
- Previous by thread: Re: Agrregation on 4500
- Next by thread: Re: Agrregation on 4500
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|