Wyse
asked on
stacking versus cascading switches
What exactly is the technical difference between stacking and cascading Cisco switches besides the fact that stacking results in a logical switch which is managed as a single switch? What are the implications on performance of using the stack port as opposed to cascading using uplink fast ethernet ports?
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
If you rare running 2900 or 3500 xl and you want to go cheep do the uplink cascade (it costs you ports...for 9 switches you loose 9 ports) plus the cpu load of pushing 9 trunks (if you are running Vlans)
If you want to spend the dollars go with the gigastack... you can get 1-Gbps independent stack backplane in a cascade configuration...and as your needs go you can add 3508s and get a lot more flexability .
If you want to spend the dollars go with the gigastack... you can get 1-Gbps independent stack backplane in a cascade configuration...and as your needs go you can add 3508s and get a lot more flexability .
If you are buying new, do you have any reason why you wouldn't consider a 4000 series switch? Port density is higher, and it has capability of dual power, etc.
If you are adding switches to existing, cascading or stacking may be the right thing to do financially, but buying a 4000 series might not be much more in cost.
If you are adding switches to existing, cascading or stacking may be the right thing to do financially, but buying a 4000 series might not be much more in cost.
True...but cost is going to be the big player...I have a 4006 with a 72 10/100 ports (36 with power for IP phones) 3X power and a PRI gateway...Great switch but over 60K after all said and done. I think the switch is base at about 24K I could be wrong though.
If the need is just ports as opposed to more advanced features... I would be more inclined to go with gigalinks than the 4000 upto the cost breakpoint.
If the need is just ports as opposed to more advanced features... I would be more inclined to go with gigalinks than the 4000 upto the cost breakpoint.
True...but cost is going to be the big player...I have a 4006 with a 72 10/100 ports (36 with power for IP phones) 3X power and a PRI gateway...Great switch but over 60K after all said and done. I think the switch is base at about 24K I could be wrong though.
If the need is just ports as opposed to more advanced features... I would be more inclined to go with gigalinks than the 4000 upto the cost breakpoint.
If the need is just ports as opposed to more advanced features... I would be more inclined to go with gigalinks than the 4000 upto the cost breakpoint.
True...but cost is going to be the big player...I have a 4006 with a 72 10/100 ports (36 with power for IP phones) 3X power and a PRI gateway...Great switch but over 60K after all said and done. I think the switch is base at about 24K I could be wrong though.
If the need is just ports as opposed to more advanced features... I would be more inclined to go with gigalinks than the 4000 upto the cost breakpoint.
If the need is just ports as opposed to more advanced features... I would be more inclined to go with gigalinks than the 4000 upto the cost breakpoint.
If you want to spend the dollars go with the gigastack... you can get 1-Gbps independent stack backplane in a cascade configuration...and as your needs go you can add 3508s and get a lot more flexability .