Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
New Member

Box to Box quasi redundancy

Hi folks,

I tried to run box-to-box redundacy between two different models of CSS.

Box1 is a CSS 11501 software 7.20 build 104 and box2 is a CSS 11050 sofware 5.00 build 63.

Playing the script ends up with:

File copy Config Sync Failed. Commit unsuccessful!

localconfig: 2545 bytes

remoteconfig : 2479 bytes

WARNING: The local version of code differs from the remote version of code.

Check for configured new commands on this switch.

... but i can't see any "new command".

I synchronized the two configuration manually and redundancy seems to work properly.

Any chance to have the script working properly with a software upgrade of the 11050 to the latest (and last) version 6.10?

Thanks in advance.

Fausto

4 REPLIES
New Member

Re: Box to Box quasi redundancy

Fausto,

With 2 different hardware models of the CSS (especially with one 2nd gen and one 1st gen) the configs will not be the exact. They will have different settings for number of interfaces as well as possibly different interface names.

The script will always copy to the backup, and will always fail the byte check, if you use different hardware versions.

either way, the redundancy should work fine. It is typically recommended that both CSSs run the same version of code, but that is impossible with the 2 hardware models you have. If there was a problem with the redundancy, this configuration would be very diffucult to support.

so, to answer your question, the upgrade to 6.10 will not eliminate the error. The only way to eliminate the error is to eliminate the check for filesize at the end of the script, and there is not an option to do that.

You are welcome to modify the script, but again, that is not supported by TAC. Many still do modify scripts on the CSS though with success.

-Steve

New Member

Re: Box to Box quasi redundancy

Hi Steve,

I have no option to change the CSS model at my customer site so I will modify the script on both CSS. Do you think that VIP or interface redundancy would be a better option than box-to-box redundancy?

Thanks for your help.

Fausto

New Member

Re: Box to Box quasi redundancy

Fausto,

The issue here is the differnet versions, so I would think the probability of having issues with box-to-box is the same as vip/interface. If you have issues with box-to-box, it is possible that VIP/Interface may not have the same issues (and visa-versa).

If it were me, I would configure VIP/Interface because it seems a little more scalable to me. If you have issues with that, then maybe explore box-to-box.

If you do have issues, you can also troubleshoot them. It will be difficult for TAC because of the unsupported version mix. However, it should still follow the same redundancy rules.

If you intend to modify the script, be sure to keep the original, and put your version with a different name.

-Steve

New Member

Re: Box to Box quasi redundancy

Hi Steve,

I upgraded the 11050 to 6.10 and the synchronization error disappeared.

Thanks for your help.

Fausto

168
Views
0
Helpful
4
Replies
CreatePlease to create content