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

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. If you'd prefer to explore, try our test area to get started. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

3550 PS high failure rate when behind RPS 2300

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.

Mike

  • LAN Switching and Routing
8 REPLIES
Bronze

Re: 3550 PS high failure rate when behind RPS 2300

Here is the URL for the RPS 2300 installation and troubleshooting guide which will help you:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/power_supplies/rps2300/hardware/installation/guide/rpsinst.html

New Member

Re: 3550 PS high failure rate when behind RPS 2300

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...

Silver

Re: 3550 PS high failure rate when behind RPS 2300

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

New Member

Re: 3550 PS high failure rate when behind RPS 2300

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.

Mike

Silver

Re: 3550 PS high failure rate when behind RPS 2300

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.

New Member

Re: 3550 PS high failure rate when behind RPS 2300

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.

Mike

Silver

Re: 3550 PS high failure rate when behind RPS 2300

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.

New Member

Re: 3550 PS high failure rate when behind RPS 2300

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...

205
Views
5
Helpful
8
Replies