Failover network with ProCurve 2626

[Mohieddin Kharnoub · Accepted solution]

Hi

Thats true

Your uplink needs to be A Trunk (two or more physical uplinks) between the switches.

Now for the Loops, if you didn;t group both ethernet interfaces on the Cisco router and you have logically 2 interfaces, then

yes there is a loop.

Thats why i recommended you to bind them into one logical interface.

My Recommendation:

- Free up 2 interfaces on each switch (at least) and create a Trunk.
- Group both Cisco router interfaces.

Vlans, is not an issue here.
If you have Vlans and you need to enable routing between them, then you can do it on the 2600 switch or on the Router.

Don;t forget to assign points to the posts that helped you.

Good Luck !!!

[Alessandro_78]

Ok for the loops.
But, why should i trunk more than one link between switches? Using one link only what's the problem.?

I checked better:
actually I have 20 port unavailable switch (20 server),

I'll do the following:

1) group ethernets on cisco
2) bonding ethernet on server (load-balancing mode and not active/standby)
3) trunking the 2 gigabit port between switches (so I'll have one 2000mbits logical link).
4) connect the port 24 of each switch to one ethernet on the router.

5) optionally, I can add port 21,22,23 to the trunk, so I'll have 2300mbit trunking.

The trunk will be useful in case of ethernet failure.

Thanks for the reply.

You'll got a 10!

[Alessandro_78]

Hi,
I read something around and i've seen that is not possibile to have load-balancing with two switches like mine.

I can make a trunk between switch (LACP or trunk? which is better? I think lacp.) but i must make an active/standby bonding on servers and router because to have load-balancing (active/active) the switches's ports must be in trunk and I can't make it trunked because they are on different switch.

So i'll do the following:

1) group ethernet on cisco (active/backup)
2) trunk 2 gigabit ports on switches (may be LACP active/dynamic)
3) bonding two ethernet on servers (active/backup)

Thanks a lot.

[hagrno]

No, you can not use 26-series switches for active redundancy. You'd need a 35 or 54-series switch with a Premium License supporting VRRP (virtual router redundancy protocol), but then again you'd need to use them as routers.

Or, you could use mesh-switching which would make two switches one logical switch unit. This is not supported on the edge products, though...

The 26-series can at best do failovers with STP as someone already posted above. Always use the latest STP if you're able to, as STP(1) is slow to turn the network map around.

On the servers you'd want one NIC on each switch running in active/passive. You have several ways of doing bonding (trunking) on them, but you'd lose more IO than what you're spending if you want a full trunk since the 26-switches can't trunk interports.

Hope this helps

[Alessandro_78]

Ok for the active/active.
I want to make a redudancy network with active/passive without using STP.

Each switch will be connected to 18-20 server, so in case of failure of one switch, all traffic should be redirected to the other via trunk cable.

I'll trunk switches with 2 gigabit port on each, so I'll have a 2gbits trunk.

In case of failure and in case of heavy-loaded servers, I'll have at maximum 20*100mbit of bandwidth: 2gbit, the same as the trunk.

So, is not correct do the following?

- configure cisco with active/standby ethernet
- connect switches with dual gigabit ports
- connect each server to each switch
- bonding each server with active/passive.


Sorry for English.