I have 2 cisco 2960g switches and I need to do what I think is link aggretation.

Ok I have like 4 cisco switches. I just upgraded one of my 2960 to a 2960g. For my core switch I have a 8 port 2960g. I need to combine 2 ports on the 24 port 2960g to 2 ports on the 8 port 2960 8 port so I will get 2 gigabits of throuput between the switches. Thank youfor your help with this
Who is Participating?

[Product update] Infrastructure Analysis Tool is now available with Business Accounts.Learn More

I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

Nayyar HH (CCIE RS)Network ArchitectCommented:

The feature you want is Etherchannel

A basic etherchannel configuration on both side would be similar to that shown below. Note that once you created the channel all configuration should be done on the etherchannel and not individual members.

Conf t
int range f0/1 - 2
channel-group <any_number btw 1-6> mode on

To know more refer to this link


Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
Questions: Why do you need 2GB between switches when the most a single port will carry is 1G.
                   Can you provide an example for installation or an example of what they are connecting

There may be a different solution than what your trying to implement. thanks
explorer648Author Commented:
Ok good question. So I have 24 people plugged into this 2600g switch. and only one plug going to the core switch.
I need more bandwidth between this new switch and the core switch. thank you for your help.
I opnly have one GB going to the core switch and I have like 4 servers that are being accessed at GB. so that is why
Virus Depot: Cyber Crime Becomes Big Business

The rising threat of malware-as-a-service is not one to be overlooked. Malware-as-a-service is growing and easily purchased from a full-service cyber-criminal store in a “Virus Depot” fashion. View our webinar recording to learn how to best defend against these attacks!

Don JohnstonInstructorCommented:
Nazsky has already provided the answer to this question in comment 30651227.
I agree with donjohnston, correct has been given.
Given your scenario of 4 servers, if set on Etherchannel,  I would seriously consider bundling  at  least 3  (if not 4)  links between switches,  to help increase the probability of adequate balancing.   Consider Etherchannel with fewer than 4 aggregated ports as primarily for redundancy, not load balancing, as "load distribution" in Etherchannel has some pretty serious limitations.

If you have 4 servers that are each needing to be accessed at a full 1 Gigabit, then you have a serious bottleneck.   Etherchannel as described above may help a little bit,  but in reality you should replace ports/transceivers/switch gear with equipment that can handle 2 gigabits or more,  if  2 or more servers truly are needing 1gb simultaneously,  then compressing them down to a  2 x 1gb  Etherchannel is not ideal.

Since all traffic between the same pair of hosts over the same port number will be sent across the same link:

Even if you establish a 2-port Etherchannel between switches,  the throughput between any two hosts over a single TCP connection/application will not exceed 1gb.
Etherchannel will not give you any more throughput for an application between a particular pair of hosts than the throughput of one of the constituent links you have bundled together.   Total theoretical maximum throughput increase occurs _only_ in the aggregate  among all hosts,  with an almost perfect mix of traffic.

In reality, you will most likely not nearly double the total peak throughputs by bundling two links.

In your scenario, Etherchannel introduces some potential failure scenarios and extreme troubleshooting difficulities to consider.    Load distribution is based on hashing, and can be extremely lopsided  (causing one link to be overused and the other to be underused),    meaning   it  may not  alleviate the bottleneck, and can actually make it worse in some cases.

Adequate load balancing over Etherchannel is also difficult to achieve.
It is fine for redundancy, but not suitable at all,  if your problem is bursty traffic between individual hosts.

Aren't those switches stackable?  I would probably use the stacking cable to link the switches; you don't burn access ports and it is much faster than a couple of bonded ports, right?
Don JohnstonInstructorCommented:
No. Only 3700's are stackable.

You can "cluster" the other switches, but that only simplifies management.
The 2960-S is the only 2960 model with a separate stacking port.
Ahh, S, not G of the 2960...the stacking switches are really nice though.  
Umm, what?
Don JohnstonInstructorCommented:
That's what passes for an answer?
explorer648Author Commented:
It is exactly what happens when I am told to close questions or get my account turned off
explorer648Author Commented:
It is exactly what happens when I am told to close questions or get my account turned off
I have requested that a moderator take a look at this.
It is against EE policies to intentionally accept a bogus answer to a question.

If you don't want to engage the members of the forum in a respectful way, then please don't waste our time.
Don JohnstonInstructorCommented:
So instead of accepting the answer to your qurstion, you accept a random comment?
And where do you feel you were you told to close your question?

I see no warning here that this question was classified as a abandon question.

Now honestly I don't know this for sure, but I would doubt very much that EE would turn off an premium account.

However, the correct answer (as donjohnston and I pointed out) is 30651227.
explorer648Author Commented:
It was turned off today I had to call and get them to turn it on. I just with that I would get a perfect answer the first time. I was under the gun to close the questions.
Don JohnstonInstructorCommented:
>I just with that I would get a perfect answer the first time.

You did. The very first response.

Here's your original question:

 >I need to combine 2 ports on the 24 port 2960g to 2  ports on the 8 port 2960 8 port
>so I will get 2 gigabits of throuput  between the switches.

And here's the answer to that question:

>The feature you want is Etherchannel
>A basic etherchannel  configuration on both side would be similar to that shown below.

Then you decide that you want to turn the question into a design/bandwidth question.

And then after it's pointed out that the question has been answered by two other posts, you feel that the fair response is to ignore the answer and accept a question that doesn't have anything to do with the original question? And all because you were told the question was answered and to close it?
Nayyar HH (CCIE RS)Network ArchitectCommented:
I support donjohnston on that note. I also the believe the original question was answered.

Moderator, sometimes Experts do find themselves answering additional queries to the original. Is there a way this can be curbed?
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Switches / Hubs

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.