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

%PLATFORM_STACKPOWER-4-PRIO_CONFLICT

Hello everyone,

I ran into this issue, where my stack logs the error every minute or so:

%PLATFORM_STACKPOWER-4-PRIO_CONFLICT: Switch 1's power stack has conflicting power priorities

This is stack of 5x 3750Xs running c3750e-universalk9-mz.122-58.SE2.bin.

I attempted to fix the issue by manually assigning the priorities to make them uniqe, but that wouldn't help:

sh stack-power

Power stack name: Powerstack-5

    Stack mode: Power sharing

    Stack topology: Ring

    Switch 1:

        Power budget: 883

        Low port priority value: 24

        High port priority value: 14

        Switch priority value: 1

        Port 1 status: Connected

        Port 2 status: Shut

        Neighbor on port 1: 7cad.74bf.f300

        Neighbor on port 2: 0000.0000.0000

    Switch 5:

        Power budget: 883

        Low port priority value: 19

        High port priority value: 10

        Switch priority value: 5

        Port 1 status: Connected

        Port 2 status: Not connected

        Neighbor on port 1: 7cad.74d9.a280

        Neighbor on port 2: 0000.0000.0000

Power stack name: Powerstack-2

    Stack mode: Power sharing

    Stack topology: Standalone

    Switch 2:

        Power budget: 685

        Low port priority value: 22

        High port priority value: 13

        Switch priority value: 3

        Port 1 status: Shut

        Port 2 status: Not connected

        Neighbor on port 1: 0000.0000.0000

        Neighbor on port 2: 0000.0000.0000

Power stack name: Powerstack-4

    Stack mode: Power sharing

    Stack topology: Ring

    Switch 3:

        Power budget: 673

        Low port priority value: 20

        High port priority value: 11

        Switch priority value: 2

        Port 1 status: Connected

        Port 2 status: Not connected

        Neighbor on port 1: 7cad.74c5.cd00

        Neighbor on port 2: 0000.0000.0000

    Switch 4:

        Power budget: 703

        Low port priority value: 23

        High port priority value: 12

        Switch priority value: 4

        Port 1 status: Shut

        Port 2 status: Connected

        Neighbor on port 1: 0000.0000.0000

        Neighbor on port 2: 7cad.74c5.5d00

sh env all

FAN 1 is OK

FAN 2 is OK

FAN PS-1 is OK

FAN PS-2 is OK

SYSTEM TEMPERATURE is OK

System Temperature Value: 30 Degree Celsius

System Temperature State: GREEN

Yellow Threshold : 46 Degree Celsius

Red Threshold    : 60 Degree Celsius

SW  PID                 Serial#     Status           Sys Pwr  PoE Pwr  Watts

---  ------------------  ----------  ---------------  -------  -------  -----

1A  C3KX-PWR-715WAC     DTN1650K0RX OK              Good     Good     715/0

1B  C3KX-PWR-715WAC     LIT17081BQG OK              Good     Good     715/0

2A  C3KX-PWR-715WAC     LIT17081A94 OK              Good     Good     715/0

2B  Not Present

3A  C3KX-PWR-715WAC     LIT17081A6B OK              Good     Good     715/0

3B  Not Present

4A  C3KX-PWR-715WAC     LIT17081A65 OK              Good     Good     715/0

4B  Not Present

5A  C3KX-PWR-715WAC     DTN1650K0QQ OK              Good     Good     715/0

5B  Not Present

Is there anything else I can do to troubleshoot this? I'd really appreciate your help.

Thanks,

-lukasz

2 REPLIES
New Member

%PLATFORM_STACKPOWER-4-PRIO_CONFLICT

Ok, hope this will save someone time...here's how I fixed that:

1. Switch(config)#Stack-power switch 1 - in my case switch 1 reported error

standalone -  wait 2/3 minutes

no standalone

2. Checked the logs and now the same error was generated by switch 3...

    Ran standalon/no standalone cmd on switch 3. After 1-st time no change, after 2nd time I found that switch 3 has       conflicting High priority value with switch 4:

Power stack name: Powerstack-3

    Stack mode: Power sharing

    Stack topology: Ring

    Switch 3:

        Power budget: 703

        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: 7cad.74c5.cd00

        Neighbor on port 2: 0000.0000.0000

    Switch 4:

        Power budget: 673

        Low port priority value: 23

        High port priority value: 12

        Switch priority value: 4

        Port 1 status: Shut

        Port 2 status: Connected

        Neighbor on port 1: 0000.0000.0000

        Neighbor on port 2: 7cad.74c5.5d00

3. Changed High priority value on switch 4, which solved the issue.

Thx,

forman

Cisco Employee

%PLATFORM_STACKPOWER-4-PRIO_CONFLICT

Please change priority on either switch to avoid these error messages. You
can change the switch priority by running the commands mentioned below:

 

configure terminal

stack-power switch switch-number 

stack [power-stack-name] 

power-priority switch value 

end

 

You configure the priority values of each switch in the power stack and of
all high and low priority ports on that switch by using the power priority
commands in power-stack configuration mode. These commands set the order in
which switches and ports are shut down when power is lost and load shedding
must occur. Priority values are from 1 to 27; switches and ports with
highest values are shut down first.

 

Now validate by running the command "show stack-power" if all switches have
different priorities and see if error message is gone.

please go through the document mentioned below and build the power-stack by connecting the cables as described here:      http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst3750x_3560x/hardware/in stallation/guide/HIGINSTL.html#wp1349233      Please check the setup described in figure 2-12 with 9 switches connected through stack wise cables and three power-stack configured.

HTH

Regards

Inayath

294
Views
0
Helpful
2
Replies