steelcoyot
MIS
I'm a novice at Cisco but want to know if it's possible for the Catalyst 2950 to support Network Teaming by a server. I want to use the HP NIC TEAM protocal so that I can provide redundancy to my servers.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations strongm on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
NIC Teaming
- Thread starter steelcoyot
- Start date
- Status
aletoledo
MIS
- Feb 6, 2007
- 17
Server teaming is different than Etherchannel.
Teaming is essentially invisible to the switch and requires no switch configuration.
Etherchannel on the other hand would configuration on both the server and the switch, but I haven't seen server admins using this since gigabit interfaces came out. The benefit in speed is negligible and the fault tolerance isn't really any better than teaming.
Teaming is essentially invisible to the switch and requires no switch configuration.
Etherchannel on the other hand would configuration on both the server and the switch, but I haven't seen server admins using this since gigabit interfaces came out. The benefit in speed is negligible and the fault tolerance isn't really any better than teaming.
- Thread starter
- #5
steelcoyot
MIS
Thanks for the quick responce, As far as routers we have 2600 and 2800. Any issues with those systems? Reason I'm asking is that I'm being told by my network guy that the router and switches do not support Teaming.
aletoledo
MIS
- Feb 6, 2007
- 17
again he's thinking etherchannel and not teaming.
"This operation is transparent to the operating system and other devices on the network.
"This operation is transparent to the operating system and other devices on the network.
you need to find out what exactly they are talking about.
aletoledo
MIS
- Feb 6, 2007
- 17
good point vipergg,
if its just redundancy that is desired, "Network fault tolerance (NFT)" would be fine and requires nothing from the switch. I believe this might be the default, because every server on my network is like this.
If its load balancing, then one of the variants of "Switch-assisted Load Balancing" would be in order and would require something on the switch. But again, the last time I did this was probably 5 years ago, before gigabit interfaces.
if its just redundancy that is desired, "Network fault tolerance (NFT)" would be fine and requires nothing from the switch. I believe this might be the default, because every server on my network is like this.
If its load balancing, then one of the variants of "Switch-assisted Load Balancing" would be in order and would require something on the switch. But again, the last time I did this was probably 5 years ago, before gigabit interfaces.
- Status