What's the best practice for Stackwise regarding priorities?

Unanswered Question
Jan 30th, 2009

What's the best practice for Stackwise regarding priorities?

1. Manually specify Master and Second Master or

2. Specify Master but left the rest of members with the same lower priorities

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Loading.
Giuseppe Larosa Fri, 01/30/2009 - 13:30

Hello Cedar,

first option is better to have more chances that the master will be a switch that is expected to take this role

Hope to help

Giuseppe

fsebera Fri, 01/30/2009 - 13:49

Hey Cedar,

We just deployed about 80 Cisco 3750 stackable switches (many different stacks). We made the access layer (where the pc's, printers etc connect) layer-3. Each stack of 3750 switches were configured manually with the master being set at 15, and the next switch (physically) in the stack set at 14 and so on until you reach the end (bottom) of the stack.

switch 1 priority 15

switch 2 priority 14

switch 3 priority 13

!

no boot auto-copy-sw

switch 1 provision ws-c3750-48p

switch 2 provision ws-c3750-48p

switch 3 provision ws-c3750-48p

!

stackmaker name NYC-switch-1

HTH

Frank

BTW, if you let the switches decide who is the master it works pretty well until you have to troubleshoot 'em than disaster sets in and somebody must pay.

glen.grant Fri, 01/30/2009 - 16:53

We do it the same way as fsebera , make master 15 and each succesive switch in the stack  1 less in the priority.

Actions

This Discussion