Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Cisco > Re: Catalyst 3750 vs 3560

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Catalyst 3750 vs 3560

 
 
Doug McIntyre
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2006
"Eric The Viking" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>I am pretty new to Cisco gear and am confused between the 3750 and 3560. It
>seems to me that the main difference is that the 3750s support stacking
>whereas the 3560s don't, but they do support clustering.


>Can someone explain the difference between clustering / stacking, and why
>would I choose a 3750 over a 3560? Would the choice be simply down to
>stack-a-bility?


There's a couple other changes, but they are fairly high-end/esoteric.

You'd have to study the two manuals side-by-side to find them.

But otherwise, yeah, thats the main difference.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bod43@hotmail.co.uk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2006

Doug McIntyre wrote:
> "Eric The Viking" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> >I am pretty new to Cisco gear and am confused between the 3750 and 3560. It
> >seems to me that the main difference is that the 3750s support stacking
> >whereas the 3560s don't, but they do support clustering.

>
> >Can someone explain the difference between clustering / stacking, and why
> >would I choose a 3750 over a 3560? Would the choice be simply down to
> >stack-a-bility?

>
> There's a couple other changes, but they are fairly high-end/esoteric.
>
> You'd have to study the two manuals side-by-side to find them.
>
> But otherwise, yeah, thats the main difference.


The 3750 stacking uses a high bandwidth link that
produces a single virtual switch with a single configuration.

I forget the bandwidth but it is MUCH more that a few
Gbits per sec.

3560 I guess (not 100% sure) uses GB Ethernet as the interlink.

If I was using 3560 I woud not bother with the clustering bit
since the network performance will be the same without it
and it is an additional complexity that is not required. I would
consider using clustering if I needed to deploy a large
number of sites each with a few switches. However I don't
see much advantage - imagine dealing with a cluster member
failure remotely with a non-expert technician on site pluging in
the new switch.

With the 3750 it is integral to the package and works very nicely
but you still would want to figure out in advance how to replace
a stack member.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
stephen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2006
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
>
> Doug McIntyre wrote:
> > "Eric The Viking" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> > >I am pretty new to Cisco gear and am confused between the 3750 and

3560. It
> > >seems to me that the main difference is that the 3750s support stacking
> > >whereas the 3560s don't, but they do support clustering.

> >
> > >Can someone explain the difference between clustering / stacking, and

why
> > >would I choose a 3750 over a 3560? Would the choice be simply down to
> > >stack-a-bility?

> >
> > There's a couple other changes, but they are fairly high-end/esoteric.
> >
> > You'd have to study the two manuals side-by-side to find them.
> >
> > But otherwise, yeah, thats the main difference.

>
> The 3750 stacking uses a high bandwidth link that
> produces a single virtual switch with a single configuration.
>
> I forget the bandwidth but it is MUCH more that a few
> Gbits per sec.
>
> 3560 I guess (not 100% sure) uses GB Ethernet as the interlink.
>
> If I was using 3560 I woud not bother with the clustering bit
> since the network performance will be the same without it
> and it is an additional complexity that is not required. I would
> consider using clustering if I needed to deploy a large
> number of sites each with a few switches. However I don't
> see much advantage - imagine dealing with a cluster member
> failure remotely with a non-expert technician on site pluging in
> the new switch.
>
> With the 3750 it is integral to the package and works very nicely
> but you still would want to figure out in advance how to replace
> a stack member.


the stack interconnect is also resilient (a ring of cables connecting the
stack members)

so - you can alter the stack - eg replace a box, without disturbing the rest
of the 3750s (not that it sounds like a good idea - i suspect the change
control team wouldnt let me do it that way).
--
Regards

http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) - replace xyz with ntl


 
Reply With Quote
 
Eric The Viking
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2006

"stephen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newsfV9h.19156$(E-Mail Removed)...
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
>>
>> Doug McIntyre wrote:
>> > "Eric The Viking" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> > >I am pretty new to Cisco gear and am confused between the 3750 and

> 3560. It
>> > >seems to me that the main difference is that the 3750s support
>> > >stacking
>> > >whereas the 3560s don't, but they do support clustering.
>> >
>> > >Can someone explain the difference between clustering / stacking, and

> why
>> > >would I choose a 3750 over a 3560? Would the choice be simply down to
>> > >stack-a-bility?
>> >
>> > There's a couple other changes, but they are fairly high-end/esoteric.
>> >
>> > You'd have to study the two manuals side-by-side to find them.
>> >
>> > But otherwise, yeah, thats the main difference.

>>
>> The 3750 stacking uses a high bandwidth link that
>> produces a single virtual switch with a single configuration.
>>
>> I forget the bandwidth but it is MUCH more that a few
>> Gbits per sec.
>>
>> 3560 I guess (not 100% sure) uses GB Ethernet as the interlink.
>>
>> If I was using 3560 I woud not bother with the clustering bit
>> since the network performance will be the same without it
>> and it is an additional complexity that is not required. I would
>> consider using clustering if I needed to deploy a large
>> number of sites each with a few switches. However I don't
>> see much advantage - imagine dealing with a cluster member
>> failure remotely with a non-expert technician on site pluging in
>> the new switch.
>>
>> With the 3750 it is integral to the package and works very nicely
>> but you still would want to figure out in advance how to replace
>> a stack member.

>
> the stack interconnect is also resilient (a ring of cables connecting the
> stack members)
>
> so - you can alter the stack - eg replace a box, without disturbing the
> rest
> of the 3750s (not that it sounds like a good idea - i suspect the change
> control team wouldnt let me do it that way).
> --
> Regards
>
> (E-Mail Removed) - replace xyz with ntl
>
>


Thanks for all the replies!

Regarding stacking, if I have two rooms with a stack of 3750s in each, I
presume that it would not be possible stack the rooms together via fibre?

--
ETV


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bod43@hotmail.co.uk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2006

stephen wrote:
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> >
> > Doug McIntyre wrote:
> > > "Eric The Viking" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> > > >I am pretty new to Cisco gear and am confused between the 3750 and

> 3560. It
> > > >seems to me that the main difference is that the 3750s support stacking
> > > >whereas the 3560s don't, but they do support clustering.
> > >
> > > >Can someone explain the difference between clustering / stacking, and

> why
> > > >would I choose a 3750 over a 3560? Would the choice be simply down to
> > > >stack-a-bility?
> > >
> > > There's a couple other changes, but they are fairly high-end/esoteric.
> > >
> > > You'd have to study the two manuals side-by-side to find them.
> > >
> > > But otherwise, yeah, thats the main difference.

> >
> > The 3750 stacking uses a high bandwidth link that
> > produces a single virtual switch with a single configuration.
> >
> > I forget the bandwidth but it is MUCH more that a few
> > Gbits per sec.
> >
> > 3560 I guess (not 100% sure) uses GB Ethernet as the interlink.
> >
> > If I was using 3560 I woud not bother with the clustering bit
> > since the network performance will be the same without it
> > and it is an additional complexity that is not required. I would
> > consider using clustering if I needed to deploy a large
> > number of sites each with a few switches. However I don't
> > see much advantage - imagine dealing with a cluster member
> > failure remotely with a non-expert technician on site pluging in
> > the new switch.
> >
> > With the 3750 it is integral to the package and works very nicely
> > but you still would want to figure out in advance how to replace
> > a stack member.

>
> the stack interconnect is also resilient (a ring of cables connecting the
> stack members)
>
> so - you can alter the stack - eg replace a box, without disturbing the rest
> of the 3750s (not that it sounds like a good idea - i suspect the change
> control team wouldnt let me do it that way).


The issue I was trying to highlight is not related to some
on-the-fly switch replacement during production but
the process of replacing a failed switch. If I recall correctly
new stack members automatically get a new stack member
number however the central config refers to the old failed
stack member so a new switch would need to be
reassigned to the number of the failed switch.

A while back I ended up doing a TAC case when I wanted to add
a 3750 to a single existing switch since I could not understand
the documentation regarding stack member numbers and
I did not want to risk the new switch becoming the "owner" of the
configuration for the whole stack.

At the end of the day it works out OK but this was not
spelled out in the docs.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Make
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2006
look figure 5
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/...d80371991.html
there is 50cm, 1m and 3m stacking cable.


> Regarding stacking, if I have two rooms with a stack of 3750s in each, I
> presume that it would not be possible stack the rooms together via fibre?



 
Reply With Quote
 
Merv
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2006
There are three lengths of staking cable andthey are relatively short:
CAB-STACK-50CM= Cisco StackWise 50CM Stacking Cable
CAB-STACK-1M= Cisco StackWise 1M Stacking Cable
CAB-STACK-3M= Cisco StackWise 3M Stacking Cable

So you would need to use fiber with SFP's to interconnect two stack
that are more than 3 metres apart

The 3750G-16TD-16 switch supports 16 10/100/1000 ports and one 10
Gigabit Ethernet XENPAK uplink in case you need that kind of bandwidth
between the two closets

 
Reply With Quote
 
Eric The Viking
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2006

"Merv" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> There are three lengths of staking cable andthey are relatively short:
> CAB-STACK-50CM= Cisco StackWise 50CM Stacking Cable
> CAB-STACK-1M= Cisco StackWise 1M Stacking Cable
> CAB-STACK-3M= Cisco StackWise 3M Stacking Cable
>
> So you would need to use fiber with SFP's to interconnect two stack
> that are more than 3 metres apart
>
> The 3750G-16TD-16 switch supports 16 10/100/1000 ports and one 10
> Gigabit Ethernet XENPAK uplink in case you need that kind of bandwidth
> between the two closets
>


Thanks Merv,

If I connected the two stacks via fibre would that give me a single stack,
or two stacks that have been uplinked?

I'm having trouble finding a definitive answer in the Cisco docs.

--
ETV


 
Reply With Quote
 
stephen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2006
"Eric The Viking" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:45682ec7.0@entanet...
>
> "Merv" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> > There are three lengths of staking cable andthey are relatively short:
> > CAB-STACK-50CM= Cisco StackWise 50CM Stacking Cable
> > CAB-STACK-1M= Cisco StackWise 1M Stacking Cable
> > CAB-STACK-3M= Cisco StackWise 3M Stacking Cable
> >
> > So you would need to use fiber with SFP's to interconnect two stack
> > that are more than 3 metres apart
> >
> > The 3750G-16TD-16 switch supports 16 10/100/1000 ports and one 10
> > Gigabit Ethernet XENPAK uplink in case you need that kind of bandwidth
> > between the two closets
> >

>
> Thanks Merv,
>
> If I connected the two stacks via fibre would that give me a single stack,
> or two stacks that have been uplinked?


2 stacks with a LAN connection between them. separate configs etc for each
stack

OTOH you may be able to cluster them - but that is just making the
management obscure for no real gain.
>
> I'm having trouble finding a definitive answer in the Cisco docs.


Dont we all
>
> --
> ETV

--
Regards

(E-Mail Removed) - replace xyz with ntl


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cisco switch 2960 2960G 3560 3560G 3750 3750G hkyejian02 Cisco 0 01-11-2008 10:00 AM
&#9733;&#9733;&#9733;sell switch 2960 2960G 3560 3560G 3750 3750G hkyejian02 Cisco 0 01-02-2008 03:25 AM
WTS :Cisco switch 2960 2960G 3560 3560G 3750 3750G hkyejian02 Cisco 0 11-27-2007 09:38 AM
Looking for a Cisco Catalyst expert to train me. I have a 4507, 3750, and 3560 rjmnyc@optonline.net Cisco 1 04-26-2006 11:20 PM
Netflow in Cisco Catalyst 3550, 3560 & 3750? Guan Foo Wah Cisco 2 01-11-2006 10:56 PM



Advertisments