 |
 |
Jeremy, Thanks for your efforts on this. Personally, i'm fine with next Tuesday afternoon. I think the general consensus was mid-day maintenance is fine, provided we send out something to MICE-ANNOUNCE (probably by the end of the day today) so people can shut down their sessions in advance if they prefer. I don't remember...did we decide if we're moving the 1G Optical folks on the existing 4200 expansion module (5 Nines, ClaimLynx, CDW/Berbee, Velocity Telephone) to the 4550? ~Matthew On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jeremy Lumby <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > As many of you know after Tuesday's meeting, I moved my connection over to > the new 4200 that was donated by Compudyne. The topology is that the > existing three switches are connected together in a ring with Juniper > stacking cables, and then the new 4200 that I am testing has 2 10G ports > lagged to the existing switches, one of which goes to the 4500, and the > other goes to the 4550. When I initially connected, I was seeing loss to > all three of the older switches. The loss was 0.4% to the 4500, and 0.2% > to the 4200, and the 4550. I then shutdown the LAG port that ran between > the 4550, and the new 4200. The new loss numbers over a 6 hour period came > back as 0% to the 4500 and 4200, and 0.2% to the 4550. I then switched it > so that only the port to the 4550 was active in the LAG group, and the loss > changed to 0.3% to the 4500, 0.2% to the 4200, and 0% to the 4550. I > believe this clearly points to the loss being in the stacking of the > existing switches. My suggested next step would be to schedule a > maintenance window where the existing members are moved from the old 4200 > to the new one, and the LAG port from the new 4200 to the 4550 is left > shutdown. This will enable the existing 4200 users to experience less > loss, while we can see if removing the old 4200, and associated stacking > cables has removed the loss from the existing stack. Because of my limited > availability I am proposing doing the maintenance next Tuesday afternoon. > Let me know if this works, or if someone else with better availability > would rather do it. It should only briefly effect the 1G members, and not > the 10G users. I plan on moving the route servers one at a time leaving > plenty of time for BGP to re-establish prior to moving the second one. > > > Jeremy Lumby > Minnesota VoIP > 9217 17th Ave S > Suite 216 > Bloomington, MN 55425 > Main: 612-355-7740 x211 > Direct: 612-392-6814 > EFax: 952-873-7425 > [log in to unmask] >