<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: StackWise equivalent in Switches, Hubs, and Modems</title>
    <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/stackwise-equivalent/m-p/4291394#M16213</link>
    <description>&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;gt;Yes, and that is not true.&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;gt;Stackwise is not only a port aggregation like Andre wrote.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;No, he did not wrote that. &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;He wrote that Procurve has no true stacking and the only thing that could be "comparable" in Procurve products would be to use a multi-modul chassis. He never wrote anything what Stackwise is or is not.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:09:43 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>RicN</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2008-10-23T08:09:43Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>StackWise equivalent</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/stackwise-equivalent/m-p/4291387#M16206</link>
      <description>Any Cisco stackwise equivalent on HP switches?&lt;BR /&gt;Even DELL and DLink has something similiar...</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:52:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/stackwise-equivalent/m-p/4291387#M16206</guid>
      <dc:creator>Alessandro_78</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-10-21T15:52:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: StackWise equivalent</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/stackwise-equivalent/m-p/4291388#M16207</link>
      <description>no Alessandro &lt;BR /&gt;no include stackwise equivalent system on procurve device &lt;BR /&gt;because procurve have different network architecture&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;A href="http://www.procurve.com/NR/rdonlyres/B212453B-3531-4049-8173-A9B8AE24E863/0/ProCurveNetworkingAdaptiveEdgeArchitecture_Mar_06_WW_Eng_Ltr.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.procurve.com/NR/rdonlyres/B212453B-3531-4049-8173-A9B8AE24E863/0/ProCurveNetworkingAdaptiveEdgeArchitecture_Mar_06_WW_Eng_Ltr.pdf&lt;/A&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:25:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/stackwise-equivalent/m-p/4291388#M16207</guid>
      <dc:creator>cenk sasmaztin</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-10-22T16:25:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: StackWise equivalent</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/stackwise-equivalent/m-p/4291389#M16208</link>
      <description>Different network topology is not an answer.&lt;BR /&gt;I can make an HP-like network topology with cisco 2960 at edge and cisco 3750 as a core with no differences between HP solution.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;StackWise is really usefull if you need to archieve redundancy and port aggregation.&lt;BR /&gt;With stackwise you can aggregate port1 on switch1 with port5 on switch4.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;for example, I have one 2610 with 2 gigabit uplink.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;With a stackwise aggregation switch I can aggregate port 25 and 26 on the 2610 to port1 on core switch1 and port1 on core switch2.&lt;BR /&gt;Redundancy and aggregation with just 2 cable.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Without stackwise I have to buy two gigabit transcever for the 2610 and I have to aggregate port 25 and 26 to port 1 and 2 on core switch1, and port27 and 28 to port 1 and 2 on coreswitch2.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;4 cable, more trouble, less redundancy.&lt;BR /&gt;More over, I have to implement MSTP and STP to prevent loop and balancing between trunks.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:07:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/stackwise-equivalent/m-p/4291389#M16208</guid>
      <dc:creator>Alessandro_78</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-10-22T18:07:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: StackWise equivalent</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/stackwise-equivalent/m-p/4291390#M16209</link>
      <description>Alessandro,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;the only thing comparable to StackWise in features is to use a chassis, like let's say a 5400zl. ProCurve has no true stacking in portfolio (what they call stacking is a management-only clustering hack of questionable benefit). Given that other vendors have chassis too and chassis are usually in another league, that makes it a hard sell.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;HTH,&lt;BR /&gt;Andre.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:19:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/stackwise-equivalent/m-p/4291390#M16209</guid>
      <dc:creator>André Beck</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-10-23T07:19:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: StackWise equivalent</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/stackwise-equivalent/m-p/4291391#M16210</link>
      <description>That's not true.&lt;BR /&gt;Like I say before, stack is even for redundancy.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;If I buy an procurve chassis switch, I have not redundancy but only port aggregation.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;For example, a 5400 with two 24 port modules will give to me 48ports and NO redundancy. If the chassis goes down, the whole switch goes down.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;With a Cisco (or even with SMC TigerStack cheaper like a traditional procurve) I can stack two or more switch having 48ports.&lt;BR /&gt;If one switch fails, the other is still up and I have full redundancy.&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:37:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/stackwise-equivalent/m-p/4291391#M16210</guid>
      <dc:creator>Alessandro_78</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-10-23T07:37:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: StackWise equivalent</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/stackwise-equivalent/m-p/4291392#M16211</link>
      <description>&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;gt;That's not true. &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Did you read what Andre wrote?&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:50:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/stackwise-equivalent/m-p/4291392#M16211</guid>
      <dc:creator>RicN</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-10-23T07:50:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: StackWise equivalent</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/stackwise-equivalent/m-p/4291393#M16212</link>
      <description>&amp;gt; Did you read what Andre wrote?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Yes, and that is not true.&lt;BR /&gt;Stackwise is not only a port aggregation like Andre wrote.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;With a 5400 I have port aggregation but NO redundancy.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;If I want redundancy I need to Use xSTP, with stack is no needed.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:00:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/stackwise-equivalent/m-p/4291393#M16212</guid>
      <dc:creator>Alessandro_78</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-10-23T08:00:02Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: StackWise equivalent</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/stackwise-equivalent/m-p/4291394#M16213</link>
      <description>&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;gt;Yes, and that is not true.&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;gt;Stackwise is not only a port aggregation like Andre wrote.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;No, he did not wrote that. &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;He wrote that Procurve has no true stacking and the only thing that could be "comparable" in Procurve products would be to use a multi-modul chassis. He never wrote anything what Stackwise is or is not.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:09:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/stackwise-equivalent/m-p/4291394#M16213</guid>
      <dc:creator>RicN</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-10-23T08:09:43Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: StackWise equivalent</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/stackwise-equivalent/m-p/4291395#M16214</link>
      <description>A multimodule chassis is NON comparable to a stacking. A multimodule chassis is NON redundant and IS ONLY for port aggregation.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Multimodule chassis and stacking are two different things and not comparable.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:24:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/stackwise-equivalent/m-p/4291395#M16214</guid>
      <dc:creator>Alessandro_78</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-10-23T08:24:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: StackWise equivalent</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/stackwise-equivalent/m-p/4291396#M16215</link>
      <description>&lt;BR /&gt;"Comparable" does not mean "equal". If someone says that feature X does not exist, but the closest comparable feature is Y - then he is not saying that X=Y.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Using a multimodule chassis will not give you backplane redundancy, but at least port redundancy if your trunk ports is located on different modules. That will be the closest comparable feature using a Procurve switch, which already have been said.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:45:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/stackwise-equivalent/m-p/4291396#M16215</guid>
      <dc:creator>RicN</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-10-23T08:45:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

