I assume CSS1 is currently assumed the master role between the 2 CSS's. If that's the case changing the priority on CSS2 to 99 may or may not allow it to assume the master role. The reason why is the preempt command on CSS1 may not allow the backup CSS2 to assume the master role. If the preempt is removed and both CSS's have the same priority and for whatever reason BOTH have assumed the master role the CSS whose (real) interface has the smaller IP address will relinquish mastership to the other CSS. If the preempt was removed from CSS1 and CSS2 had a higher priority of 100 then there is a strong possibility that CSS2 will assume the master role. This would be done through the VRRP messages exchanged between the 2 load balancers.
One thing I wanted to ask, why are interested in changing the mastership role between the CSS's if you have designated one (CSS1) to have a higher priority and preempt?
Introduction This article will help you understand the steps on how to
download the UCS licenses from the Cisco Systems website and then
installing it on the UCS. The redacted (blue lines) just covers up
certain numbers for privacy please do not take them...
Introduction This article will help you understand and educate the
customer on how to clear their "expired licenses"
(license-graceperiod-expired) from their UCS-M. If a customer just
purchased a license and needs a step by step guide on how to download
==================== VIC FNIC driver does not support Virtual Volumes (
second level LUN ID ) An enhancement request has been created to track
this feature - CSCux64473 UPDATE - 12-14-2016 We made some traction on
the enhancement request - The Fix is in t...