Prev: Cisco SOHO 97 router reset
Next: Reason 412: The remote peer is no longer responding.
From: Ian Snowdon on 11 Jan 2006 17:45
As part of the construction of a new depot, a network is being designed
and installed by a sub-contractor to the builders. The designer of the
network had originally planned to use three 4500 chassis's with 3750's
and 2950's in the remaining locations. He has since learnt that Cisco
have stopped issuing MTBF figures for the 4500 models and decided to use
3750's instead. Not only that, he is going to link modules in the stack
via Gb ports rather than make use of the stacking facility (he seems to
feel there is an advantage but I can't see it).

Technically our company is not the customer to the builders even though
the site gets passed over to us on completion (don't ask!), so we would
have to convince the body having the depot built that the 4500 option is
the better one. The spec' for the network specifies reliability and
MTBF comes into that, hence the designer going for devices that Cisco
quote MTBF figures for.

My gut feeling is that the 4500 should have a better reliability than
3750's (and the like) when setup with redundant power supplies and
redundant supervisor cards, as per the one I installed in the head
office.

What do you guys think? And why would Cisco stop publishing figures for
the 4500 range? It almost suggests it was becoming unreliable so they
didn't want people to find out the easy way - well, would you?
--
Snowy

From: Steve Ray on 11 Jan 2006 17:57
Ian

WRT to EOL on the 4500, this may help

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps4324/prod_eol_notice0900aecd802f8b74.html

Steve


"Ian Snowdon" <Ian(a)snowdon.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1g59KWSeoYxDFw7W(a)snowdon.org.uk...
> As part of the construction of a new depot, a network is being designed
> and installed by a sub-contractor to the builders. The designer of the
> network had originally planned to use three 4500 chassis's with 3750's and
> 2950's in the remaining locations. He has since learnt that Cisco have
> stopped issuing MTBF figures for the 4500 models and decided to use 3750's
> instead. Not only that, he is going to link modules in the stack via Gb
> ports rather than make use of the stacking facility (he seems to feel
> there is an advantage but I can't see it).
>
> Technically our company is not the customer to the builders even though
> the site gets passed over to us on completion (don't ask!), so we would
> have to convince the body having the depot built that the 4500 option is
> the better one. The spec' for the network specifies reliability and MTBF
> comes into that, hence the designer going for devices that Cisco quote
> MTBF figures for.
>
> My gut feeling is that the 4500 should have a better reliability than
> 3750's (and the like) when setup with redundant power supplies and
> redundant supervisor cards, as per the one I installed in the head office.
>
> What do you guys think? And why would Cisco stop publishing figures for
> the 4500 range? It almost suggests it was becoming unreliable so they
> didn't want people to find out the easy way - well, would you?
> --
> Snowy
>


From: Ian Snowdon on 12 Jan 2006 00:48
In message <i3gxf.38352$5v1.20681(a)newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, Steve Ray
<nochace(a)all.com> scribes
>Ian
>
>WRT to EOL on the 4500, this may help
>
>http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps4324/prod_eol_notice09
>00aecd802f8b74.html
>
>Steve
>
>
Thanks Steve but that references the EOL of one card which is being
replaced by another. It is not saying that they have EOL'ed the 4500.
--
Snowy

From: anybody43 on 12 Jan 2006 13:31
> network is being designed and installed by a sub-contractor to the builders
<g>

> Cisco have stopped issuing MTBF figures for the 4500 models
There are MTBF statements:-
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/modules/ps2710/products_data_sheet0900aecd802109ea.html

Says:-

"results in a very high mean time between failures (MTBF)"
<g> again.

That is an interesting puzzle indeed.

From: Ian Snowdon on 17 Jan 2006 16:54
In message <1g59KWSeoYxDFw7W(a)snowdon.org.uk>, Ian Snowdon
<Ian(a)snowdon.org.uk> scribes
>As part of the construction of a new depot, a network is being designed
>and installed by a sub-contractor to the builders. The designer of the
>network had originally planned to use three 4500 chassis's with 3750's
>and 2950's in the remaining locations. He has since learnt that Cisco
>have stopped issuing MTBF figures for the 4500 models and decided to
>use 3750's instead.

Contacted Cisco and their response is that we/someone would have to
contact a Channel Partner and sign a non-disclosure agreement.

Odd!

That rather implies that the 4500 range is unreliable. Hopefully that
isn't the case as we have a 4510 in the LAN room feeding the other
switch stacks in the head office. Ho hum.
--
Snowy

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Cisco SOHO 97 router reset
Next: Reason 412: The remote peer is no longer responding.