HP V1810-48G je009a spanning tree missing in configuration? general spanning tree questions?

[markm75]

I have this switch with software version pk 1.18.. i believe that i'm out of luck in terms of using spanning tree with this switch.. specs show it should exist but doesnt and i think others ran into this

I'm not sure if this is related but we are running into spanning tree issues or switch issues.. i have 5 total switches in our business.. this is one of them.. ports are showing unidentified network, cant get DHCP addresses on many ports on random switches.. at this point i did not enable spanning tree on any of the other (non hp) switches (dlink switches).. 

Would spanning tree prevent these "brown outs".. or are those other switches just too old (7 plus years each).  Actually.. it turned out some of these suddenly "Dead" ports were on the newer HP switch, so maybe its not an age thing.  All the switches are interconnected with fiber, from bottom to top, then off to 4 POE switches above that for our phone system).

I dont have anything else besides jumbo frames enabled (and storm control) on all of these switches.. no trunking etc (unsure trunking needed or how it would work or aid in the situation either)..

I was suspecting i need spanning tree configured in some way (unsure even how to do this, numbering wise with the spanning tree setting if it did exist).. i think just pick lowest physical switch, lower number and work my way up to the hp which is physically on the top?

Any thoughts on any of this?

Thanks in advance

[Vince-Whirlwind]

The 1810 doesn't have spanning tree as far as I know.

Link aggregation would help where you have multiple links between a pair of switches.

We would need to see a diagram of your topology in order to comment further.

[markm75]

Currently this is my layout, i may be begging to see possible issues with series configuration, as maybe i have issues on lower level switch ports and then it trickles up the chain or blocks the others from working at all.

Unsure the best route to take here.. i always thought it was best to use those fiber connections between them, but on these 48 port + 4 fiber switches, all you have avail is 4 ports.. not 5 or more..

I've seen diagrams for star topology and ring, unsure if those apply to switches like this situation.  Note below.. where i mention these workstation ports go to random switch spots.. i mean all 6 switches, not just to the ones at the ends of the blue arrows

 

[Vince-Whirlwind]

Yeah, you've got one hell of a bottleneck between SwitchD and SwitchE.

I would repatch these as follows:
Switches A, B F & D each patched to one of Switch E's fibre interfaces.
Switch G into switch D
One PoE switch into each of switches A B F.

Even better, if all the switches are in the same location, and if SwitchE has any copper Gb interfaces, then patch all switches directly to those copper interfaces., so long as they come up as 1Gb.

There is no reason to prefer fibre over copper - fibre is mainly good because you can get distant switches patched together. In fact, copper is faster than fibre anyway - current moves faster through good quality cabling than light moves through fibre. Not that that makes any real difference.

[markm75]

---

@Vince-Whirlwind wrote:

Yeah, you've got one hell of a bottleneck between SwitchD and SwitchE.

I would repatch these as follows:
Switches A, B F & D each patched to one of Switch E's fibre interfaces.
Switch G into switch D
One PoE switch into each of switches A B F.

Even better, if all the switches are in the same location, and if SwitchE has any copper Gb interfaces, then patch all switches directly to those copper interfaces., so long as they come up as 1Gb.

There is no reason to prefer fibre over copper - fibre is mainly good because you can get distant switches patched together. In fact, copper is faster than fibre anyway - current moves faster through good quality cabling than light moves through fibre. Not that that makes any real difference.

---

When you say copper i assume you mean a standard cat 6 cable into one of the 48 ports, rather than using a fiber port.?

This layout makes more sense.. a star topology, given our expansion recently.  Only issue i see is that if that main switch goes down, then everything else goes down.  I think what might be needed is a switch in the center that has redundancy built in.. any suggestions?

Would an alternate to a beefy central switch be to put say switch E and G in the center.. tied together and as you mentioned with everything else?

Or.. can say switch B have a line going to switch A etc (gets into spanning tree?).. i guess that doesnt solve the issue if the main one goes down?

[markm75]

I believe this will become the new layout, replacing 3 of the 6 switches with cisco 300 switches though.. maybe another for a redundant backup, since if the main one goes they all go.. if i have this right

I decided to post a pic of this hugely messy rack system for perspective.... prior to the down time 10 days ago (i wasnt here) it was tied up and neat, now its a disaster for now.. we have another rack to the right with servers and a giant UPS system.. on the right is a vertical organizational box

That cisco 300 level, layer3 switch x 3 is still on the way.. i still have one dlink that is dark, so it will go away.. along with two others, maybe buy one more as the spare.. that still leaves 3 "old" switches which are still layer2

[Vince-Whirlwind]

Yes, your network appears to have grown to the point where a decent "core" could be a good idea.

For me, a "core" is a stack of switches (as in a single virtual switch made up of say HP2930s), with all the access switches patched back to both cores.

I avoid daisy-chaining like the plague.

Bear in mind the server room requirement can be special - if you have high speed SAN and servers, then normal switches will create bottlenecks that will show up as undefinable performance issues for users - a low latency switch with big buffers might be needed.

[markm75]

---

@Vince-Whirlwind wrote:

Yes, your network appears to have grown to the point where a decent "core" could be a good idea.

For me, a "core" is a stack of switches (as in a single virtual switch made up of say HP2930s), with all the access switches patched back to both cores.

I avoid daisy-chaining like the plague.

Bear in mind the server room requirement can be special - if you have high speed SAN and servers, then normal switches will create bottlenecks that will show up as undefinable performance issues for users - a low latency switch with big buffers might be needed.

---

How does the hp2930 or a series of them work together exactly.. is this your way of making things redundant, short of in my case, having another switch ready in a moments notice?  Quick price check though, seeing $4k for the base switch?  How does redundancy work with something like that.. is it still basically like in my proposed diagram but with it at the core?

Still.. a secondary cisco (or hp) layer3 light in case of cisco or layer2 in case of the hps and dlinks i have.. seem to be way cheaper at $700 x 2 for the both.

Debating whether i should replace all 6 (or 5 outside of the core) with the cisco layer 3 light switches and find something suitable for the core (or use another cisco layer 3 for the core).. otherwise i have a mix of old (possibly bad) dlinks and layer2 and layer3 light switches (unlclear what layer 3 light means exactly)

[Vince-Whirlwind]

A pair of proper switches can be "stacked" so that they operate as if they were a chassis switch with 2 modules - a single virtual switch - so that incoming connections can be link-aggregated across the two modules so if one of them goes down, connectivity is maintained.

If you do the same thing with two non-stacking switches, then that's OK as well so long as spanning-tree is enabled on every switch, with the correct priorities.

You only need Layer3 in the core, not on any of the other switches, although I wouldn't be surprised if your routing interface is on your firewall, like many smaller networks are setup.

[markm75]

---

@Vince-Whirlwind wrote:

A pair of proper switches can be "stacked" so that they operate as if they were a chassis switch with 2 modules - a single virtual switch - so that incoming connections can be link-aggregated across the two modules so if one of them goes down, connectivity is maintained.

If you do the same thing with two non-stacking switches, then that's OK as well so long as spanning-tree is enabled on every switch, with the correct priorities.

You only need Layer3 in the core, not on any of the other switches, although I wouldn't be surprised if your routing interface is on your firewall, like many smaller networks are setup.

---

I didnt realize this, though i guess i should have :)  

So in theory, if we use two of our Cisco 300-52 switches at the core where i had "E" as the core in the diagram.. call it E1 and E2.. if all the servers are plugged into E1 and E1 goes down.. how does communication with them on E1 continue despite being configured as a virtual switch.. i mean, if E1 is dark, how does a signal pass on through exactly?   And how do they get configured to work in this manner exactly.. is this involving trunking or some other setting on each one somehow?  It may be our answer to redundancy vs spending 4 or 5 times as much on one core device.. or having a hot spare ready.