Comments on: Top of Rack vs End of Row Data Center Designs http://bradhedlund.com/2009/04/05/top-of-rack-vs-end-of-row-data-center-designs/ Studies in Data Center Networking, Virtualization, Computing Thu, 29 Jul 2010 06:32:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Top of Rack vs End of Row Data Center Designs « Ask the Cisco Kid! http://bradhedlund.com/2009/04/05/top-of-rack-vs-end-of-row-data-center-designs/comment-page-1/#comment-826 Top of Rack vs End of Row Data Center Designs « Ask the Cisco Kid! Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:11:43 +0000 http://www.bradhedlund.com/?p=247#comment-826 [...] I came across this great article on the different types of Data Center network designs, Top of Rack vs End of Row. Great information! check it out at. bradhedlund.com [...] [...] I came across this great article on the different types of Data Center network designs, Top of Rack vs End of Row. Great information! check it out at. bradhedlund.com [...]

]]> By: Brad Hedlund http://bradhedlund.com/2009/04/05/top-of-rack-vs-end-of-row-data-center-designs/comment-page-1/#comment-691 Brad Hedlund Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:52:19 +0000 http://www.bradhedlund.com/?p=247#comment-691 Pedroq, <blockquote>I want to see you argue that…</blockquote> OK, you asked for it: http://www.bradhedlund.com/2010/02/09/nexus-5000-2000-new-technology-requires-new-thinking/ ;-) Pedroq,

I want to see you argue that…

OK, you asked for it: http://www.bradhedlund.com/2010/02/09/nexus-5000-2000-new-technology-requires-new-thinking/

;-)

]]> By: pedroq http://bradhedlund.com/2009/04/05/top-of-rack-vs-end-of-row-data-center-designs/comment-page-1/#comment-687 pedroq Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:20:04 +0000 http://www.bradhedlund.com/?p=247#comment-687 hey brad: the nexus 2k are inflexible and do not fit every datacenter..your point of view is directed to a data-center that is new..some legacy datacenters do need tagging and etherchannels. The nexus 2k does not allow itself to be repurposed or positioned in another datacenter . it is completetelly attached to the nexus platform.there is some value in that as one datacenter get newer stuff ,the 4948 can be re-purpsed somewhere else...The nexus 2148t can only extendto 12 swithes or a max of 480 ports...Come on why let it scale on the nexus 5000 to 56 nexus 2k switches.you can take the same 4948 ond attach it to the 5k up to 56 switches...and therefore allows your redundant 5k to be scale more.. intead of buying a pair of 5k for every 12 nexus 24148t... the only thing you get with a nexus 5k that the 4948 does not have is stacking .you would have to mange a lot of 4948 vs a single 5k .. that is it after that you dont get any more value...I want to see you argue that... so for those of you thinking about the nexus platform..take this into account..THe nexus 2148t sucks...it is missing many features, the nexus platform is not there yet ..If you have a datacenter where you have many technologies and you need that traditional cisco switch handle and feature set you dont want the nexus 2148t.cisco will be tying you to an inflexible techology and you cant use those 2k anywhere else but the nexus 5k... I do see some value on the nexus 7k and next version of the 5k ..but i would opt out of the nexus 2k. hey brad:
the nexus 2k are inflexible and do not fit every datacenter..your point of view is directed to a data-center that is new..some legacy datacenters do need tagging and etherchannels. The nexus 2k does not allow itself to be repurposed or positioned in another datacenter . it is completetelly attached to the nexus platform.there is some value in that as one datacenter get newer stuff ,the 4948 can be re-purpsed somewhere else…The nexus 2148t can only extendto 12 swithes or a max of 480 ports…Come on why let it scale on the nexus 5000 to 56 nexus 2k switches.you can take the same 4948 ond attach it to the 5k up to 56 switches…and therefore allows your redundant 5k to be scale more..
intead of buying a pair of 5k for every 12 nexus 24148t…

the only thing you get with a nexus 5k that the 4948 does not have is stacking .you would have to mange a lot of 4948 vs a single 5k ..
that is it after that you dont get any more value…I want to see you argue that…

so for those of you thinking about the nexus platform..take this into account..THe nexus 2148t sucks…it is missing many features, the nexus platform is not there yet ..If you have a datacenter where you have many technologies and you need that traditional cisco switch handle and feature set you dont want the nexus 2148t.cisco will be tying you to an inflexible techology and you cant use those 2k anywhere else but the nexus 5k…

I do see some value on the nexus 7k and next version of the 5k ..but i would opt out of the nexus 2k.

]]> By: Vijay Tyagi http://bradhedlund.com/2009/04/05/top-of-rack-vs-end-of-row-data-center-designs/comment-page-1/#comment-666 Vijay Tyagi Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:09:10 +0000 http://www.bradhedlund.com/?p=247#comment-666 Brad it’s a very good article, we really appreciate your efforts. Brad it’s a very good article, we really appreciate your efforts.

]]> By: Brad Hedlund http://bradhedlund.com/2009/04/05/top-of-rack-vs-end-of-row-data-center-designs/comment-page-1/#comment-626 Brad Hedlund Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:28:13 +0000 http://www.bradhedlund.com/?p=247#comment-626 Michael, We have not certified a passive 7m cable and it doesn't look like we will anytime soon. Right now we are looking at certifying an active 7m cable. The concern with the passive 7m cable is around bit error rates beyond what would be acceptable for FCoE. For just normal Ethernet traffic the passive 7m cable would be fine. If you think it would be a good idea for Cisco to certify a passive 7m cable for Ethernet only (no FCoE), post your thoughts here. Cheers, Brad Michael,
We have not certified a passive 7m cable and it doesn’t look like we will anytime soon. Right now we are looking at certifying an active 7m cable. The concern with the passive 7m cable is around bit error rates beyond what would be acceptable for FCoE. For just normal Ethernet traffic the passive 7m cable would be fine. If you think it would be a good idea for Cisco to certify a passive 7m cable for Ethernet only (no FCoE), post your thoughts here.

Cheers,
Brad

]]> By: michaelK http://bradhedlund.com/2009/04/05/top-of-rack-vs-end-of-row-data-center-designs/comment-page-1/#comment-624 michaelK Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:04:01 +0000 http://www.bradhedlund.com/?p=247#comment-624 Brad, I see above in a may post that you mention a 7m cable. Has Cisco certified the 7m cable yet for Fex? Do they now sell a 7m cable? Great website. mk Brad,

I see above in a may post that you mention a 7m cable. Has Cisco certified the 7m cable yet for Fex? Do they now sell a 7m cable? Great website.

mk

]]> By: Craig Weinhold http://bradhedlund.com/2009/04/05/top-of-rack-vs-end-of-row-data-center-designs/comment-page-1/#comment-623 Craig Weinhold Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:30:19 +0000 http://www.bradhedlund.com/?p=247#comment-623 <blockquote>configuration consistency is checked and if there is a violation the ports will not come up</blockquote> True for the port-channel to the nexus 2000, but not for the FEX host ports themselves. I.e., this is taken without error: <code> ! N5K #1 int eth 100/1/1 switchport access vlan 5 ! N5K #2 int eth 100/1/1 switchport access vlan 6 </code>

configuration consistency is checked and if there is a violation the ports will not come up

True for the port-channel to the nexus 2000, but not for the FEX host ports themselves. I.e., this is taken without error:


! N5K #1
int eth 100/1/1
switchport access vlan 5

! N5K #2
int eth 100/1/1
switchport access vlan 6

]]> By: Brad Hedlund http://bradhedlund.com/2009/04/05/top-of-rack-vs-end-of-row-data-center-designs/comment-page-1/#comment-622 Brad Hedlund Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:48:31 +0000 http://www.bradhedlund.com/?p=247#comment-622 Craig, Correct that host port configurations are not synchronized between dual-homed N2K's, however configuration consistency is checked and if there is a violation the ports will not come up. You can use the command "<strong>show vpc consistency interface</strong>" to check the configuration consistency status. Cheers, Brad Craig,

Correct that host port configurations are not synchronized between dual-homed N2K’s, however configuration consistency is checked and if there is a violation the ports will not come up.
You can use the command “show vpc consistency interface” to check the configuration consistency status.

Cheers,
Brad

]]> By: Craig Weinhold http://bradhedlund.com/2009/04/05/top-of-rack-vs-end-of-row-data-center-designs/comment-page-1/#comment-621 Craig Weinhold Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:54:03 +0000 http://www.bradhedlund.com/?p=247#comment-621 <blockquote>Or, put another way, once N5K supports vPC, how often do you think you’ll recommend singly-homing your N2K’s?</blockquote> I rescind the rhetorical question above. After finally seeing an N2K dual-homed to a N5K vPC and observing the that the access port config is not synchronized and/or consistency checked between the two N5K's, it's clear to me that no sane person should ever do this.

Or, put another way, once N5K supports vPC, how often do you think you’ll recommend singly-homing your N2K’s?

I rescind the rhetorical question above. After finally seeing an N2K dual-homed to a N5K vPC and observing the that the access port config is not synchronized and/or consistency checked between the two N5K’s, it’s clear to me that no sane person should ever do this.

]]> By: Steve M http://bradhedlund.com/2009/04/05/top-of-rack-vs-end-of-row-data-center-designs/comment-page-1/#comment-593 Steve M Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:13:32 +0000 http://www.bradhedlund.com/?p=247#comment-593 Thanks Brad. This is one of the most informative posts I've come across with regard to DC design. Very well written - it's clear that you know your stuff! Thanks. Thanks Brad. This is one of the most informative posts I’ve come across with regard to DC design. Very well written – it’s clear that you know your stuff! Thanks.

]]>