This post is more than 5 years old
18 Posts
0
40956
July 19th, 2011 15:00
M1000e with two PowerConnect M6348 modules [Assistance Needed]
Hey there!
I was looking for some assistance in what I'm doing wrong with our new switches. Now keep in mind I have never really dealt with trying to create LAGs. First I would like to explain the network a little:
(2) PowerConnect M6348
(1) M1000e blade enclosure
(2) Blade servers (used for ESXi 4.1)
(2) PS6000e iSCSI SANs with Module 7
(1) Procurve switch (main)
(2) Checkpoint UTM firewall (Active/Active cluster).
So the way it sits now is the firewalls are connected to the Procurve switch (main switch).
Here is where I need assistance. I know we need to create a connection between the PowerConnect switches. So since we don't have the stacking cables yet I wanted to try it with LAG. I setup the LAG on both switches for ports 47 and 48. I connected them together. Now when I connect the procurve to one of the PowerConnect switches it takes down the network.
How can I connect the two PowerConnect switches together since this is required for the redundancy of the PS6000e SANs and connect the procurve to them without creating any loops and the network going down?
hans555
18 Posts
1
July 29th, 2011 15:00
When you have the stacking cable and because you only have one procurve:
setup a LAG that span both M6348(max 8 port per LAG) to the HP.
Without stacking cable:
1. The way you have it done right now is correct.
2. you can setup 2 different LAG that connect to the HP, and 1 LAG between the M6348. But you have to change the spanning-tree cost on one of the LAG between the HP and M6348 to 200000 so that this LAG will be the alternate or backup path.
hans555
18 Posts
0
July 29th, 2011 14:00
Are both of the PowerConnect M6348 connected to the same Procurve?
Please post the config of both M6348.
jdixon86
18 Posts
0
July 29th, 2011 14:00
Here is a picture of the way it sits now: (which is wrong.. but works so we could just test it out)
So the way I think this should work is run one LAG from Procurve to PowerConnect 1 and then another LAG from Procurve to PowerConnect 2. This would not be linking the two powerconnects directly together.
Now whenever we get stacking cables we will probably use those since they provide much more bandwidth.
How would I do this correctly?
jdixon86
18 Posts
0
July 29th, 2011 17:00
Thanks for the information.... but I think I should of told you more. I really didn't think I needed to include it in the diagram because of where the switches were. I apologize. Below is a more accurate picture:
So if the other switches don't make much of a difference at all.. then if I understand you correctly, I need to configure it like this (assuming I don't have the stacking cables yet for the PowerConnect modules):
See what I did try is a LAG between the two PowerConnects. I set it up. Then I had a single cable connecting the Procurve to a single PowerConnect (in A1 slot). It seemed to take down the network when I tried it that way. I'm guessing its because I have to have a LAG from Procurve to A1 slot if I have a LAG between PowerConnect modules?