3550 PS high failure rate when behind RPS 2300

Unanswered Question
Jun 12th, 2008

We're seeing a higher than expected power supply failure rate in our catalyst 3550-24 poe switches since we put a number of them behind RPS 2300 units last summer. We've had a couple of dozen failures as compared to a single failure of a 3550 not behind an RPS in the same time frame. Anyone else seeing this type of thing? We've also had a few 3750's lose power supplies but the 3550's stand out.


  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 5 (1 ratings)
mifitzgerald Fri, 08/08/2008 - 07:14

The manual won't help power supplies that have failed. This isn't a case where the switch is on RPS when it shouldn't be. We're actually having power supplies go bad at a much higher rate when the switches are backed-up by RPS vs those that don't have RPS backup. Seems like the RPS is blowing out supplies...

mciarfello Tue, 12/16/2008 - 08:56

I have a customer with the same PERCEIVED situation. What did your research turn up?

mifitzgerald Tue, 12/16/2008 - 09:37

Haven't turned up anything. Cisco is pretty silent on the issue and given the status of the 3550's, they're probably not in a hurry to do anything. We're still seeing failures. Have even had a few new (as of last year) 3750's die as well. Good luck.


mciarfello Tue, 12/16/2008 - 10:17

Thanks for the quick response. 3560's here (non E's) About 5 so far in the last couple months.

I'll open a TAC case to start covering bases.

mifitzgerald Tue, 12/16/2008 - 11:01

Sure thing. I don't think we've lost any 3560's yet, but they're a small number compared to the 3550s. My problem is the 3550s are just past the 5-year limited warranty on the power supplies, so it's going to start costing me money if/when Cisco starts refusing to repair them under warranty. We're due to roll out the entire edge but budget won't allow at the moment. Of course, if they keep dying, I'll replace them a few at a time... I'd be interested to see if you get anywhere with Cisco beyond them just replacing the ones that died.


mciarfello Sat, 12/20/2008 - 14:15

We got them replaced by Cisco. No other information from Cisco on a cause. The customer will continue to monitor failures.

3560-E and 3750-E look like the way to go when using the RPS units. MUCH more functionality, as described by people on this forum. Who would think redundant power would have so many functions, monitoring, restrictions, etc.

mifitzgerald Sat, 12/20/2008 - 15:16

That's been our experience as well. As to the E-series, yes, they're built for the RPS. We added the RPS units to an existing network of non-E units so we get to live with things like once the non-E units go over to RPS, you have to reboot them to bring them back to line power. Not ideal but the RPS has kept us from having to drop everything to run and replace an edge switch a number of times. If only we didn't feel the RPS was the cause of the failure...


This Discussion