I have a couple questions I'd appreciate a little guidance with.
I've been assigned a task to expand a 3750X switchstack consisting of 2 members (both WS-C3750X-48T-S) by adding an additional member of the same model. The new switch will not be in the same rack as the existing stack, and so longer stackwise cables have been provided to allow the data stack in this configuration. No worries.
My questions revolve around the power situation. Both of the existing members have dual 350W power supplies, and stack-power cables between them. The stack-power mode has been set to power sharing strict, as follows:
swkSANo>sh stack- Power stack name: Powerstack-1 Stack mode: Power sharing strict Stack topology: Ring Switch 1: Power budget: 223 Low port priority value: 21 High port priority value: 12 Switch priority value: 3 Port 1 status: Connected Port 2 status: Not connected Neighbor on port 1: e8b7.4851.6280 Neighbor on port 2: 0000.0000.0000
Switch 2: Power budget: 223 Low port priority value: 22 High port priority value: 13 Switch priority value: 4 Port 1 status: Connected Port 2 status: Not connected Neighbor on port 1: e8b7.4851.2d80 Neighbor on port 2: 0000.0000.0000
swkSANo>sh env power SW PID Serial# Status Sys Pwr PoE Pwr Watts -- ------------------ ---------- --------------- ------- ------- ----- 1A C3KX-PWR-350WAC LIT15071C59 OK Good Good 350/0 1B C3KX-PWR-350WAC LIT14500ZXW OK Good Good 350/0
1 - Since the stack-power group is only 2 members, is it OK that only one stack-power cable is utilized, or should I attach the other cable?
2 - Since there is no PoE, and the power budget is then presumably rather static, would I be better off changing the mode to redundant, or does powersharing accomplish the same thing in my scenario?
Last question is related to the new stack-member. The new member does not have redundant PS, just a single 350W PS. I do not have longer stack-power cables to loop the new member in, so my thought is this:
Take one of the power supplies out of the existing stack and install it in the new stack member. This way, any one of the 5 total PS can fail, and there will be (presumably) no impact to the operation of any member of the the stack. Does my logic hold water here?
Regarding your second question, I think you should be fine with strict mode. Default is power-sharing.
Power Share "Strict" Mode
The power sharing mode has an inherent capability to oversubscribe itself in case of power supply failures. That is, when an imbalance occurs between available power budgets and allocated power, more power is allocated than is available. By definition, the system should never have a negative power budget, but it is possible that a power supply failure brings the power budget below the allocated power. Such a condition will trigger a series of alarming messages to the console.
We are pleased to announce availability of Beta software for 16.6.3.
16.6.3 will be the second rebuild on the 16.6 release train targeted
towards Catalyst 9500/9400/9300/3850/3650 switching platforms. We are
looking for early feedback from customers befor...
Introduction Featured Speakers Luis Espejel is the Telecommunications
Manager of IENova, an Oil & Gas company. Currently he works with Cisco
IOS® and Cisco IOS XE platforms, and NX to some extent. He has also
worked as a Senior Engineer with the Routing P...
In this session you can learn more about Layer 3 multicast and the best
practices to identify possible threats and take security measures. It
provides an overview of basic multicast, the best security practices for
use of this technology, and recommendati...