Marwan ALshawi Tue, 09/23/2008 - 21:04
User Badges:
  • Purple, 4500 points or more
  • Community Spotlight Award,

    Best Publication, December 2015

cant see that attchment?

SJessulat_2 Tue, 09/23/2008 - 21:23
User Badges:

Hi,


if you connect the servers to one switch only like the 4507, you have a single point of failure. If you plan to connect each server with only one leg anyway, then this makes no difference. But i would suggest to connect each server (if possible) to two switches like both 6509.


Concerning the copper vs. fibre question: i would always go with the fibre solution. It is immune to electromagnetic interference and if e.g. a lightning hits a circuit where one switch is connected, the copper connection could transfer this voltage in the worst case.


Regards,

Sebastian

Danilo Dy Tue, 09/23/2008 - 21:13
User Badges:
  • Blue, 1500 points or more

Let me try


1.

- I don't see many reason for not connecting the servers in 6509. There is no firewall in the diagram, and I think firewall module is supported in 6509. Also, the 4507 shown in the diagram is standalone, what if you have clustered, load-balance, NIC-teaming servers.

- Location

- Separate administration of access and distribution layer.

- Future plan to implement a firewall device between access and distribution.


2.

- 10G

- Distance

Joseph W. Doherty Wed, 09/24/2008 - 03:14
User Badges:
  • Super Bronze, 10000 points or more

1) Any advantages?


Well you eliminate the need for a whole other chassis. Extra line card(s) for 6500 to provide server ports likely less expensive assuming you only need to acquire 6500 line card(s) rather than whole 4500 chassis and its line card(s). Besides possible reduced CAPEX also possible reduced OPEX.


You could provide a lot more performance connecting to the 6500. The original 4500 series only provides 6 Gbps per slot and the dual uplinks, especially if only gig, might be a bottleneck to the core. On the otherhand, depending on what cards you're using in the 6500, you can have up to 40 Gbps per slot and local line card routing.


As to best practice, I don't see a need to install physical layers unless there's a real need to do so.


2) Fiber vs. copper


The other posters have touched on the advantages of fiber vs. copper. Of course, it often is much more expensive, not only the port itself, but don't forget the required converters. For just a couple of uplinks, the incremental cost of fiber isn't too bad unless you need to purchase a whole fiber port line card to provide just a couple of fiber ports.


If you already have copper ports available, you can always start with them and move to fiber, later, if needed.


Also keep in mind the expense of changing your cableing plant. If only copper or fiber runs are already in place, it be might be more costly to add other media type cable to "save" on a line card port type. (With you're diagram, this might not be much of an issue.)

Actions

This Discussion