Re: Catalyst 3750 vs 3560

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by Doug McIntyre, Nov 25, 2006.

  1. "Eric The Viking" <> 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.
     
    Doug McIntyre, Nov 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Doug McIntyre

    Guest

    Doug McIntyre wrote:
    > "Eric The Viking" <> 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.
     
    , Nov 25, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Doug McIntyre

    stephen Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Doug McIntyre wrote:
    > > "Eric The Viking" <> 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

    - replace xyz with ntl
     
    stephen, Nov 25, 2006
    #3
  4. "stephen" <> wrote in message
    news:pfV9h.19156$...
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> Doug McIntyre wrote:
    >> > "Eric The Viking" <> 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
    >
    > - 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
     
    Eric The Viking, Nov 25, 2006
    #4
  5. Doug McIntyre

    Guest

    stephen wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > Doug McIntyre wrote:
    > > > "Eric The Viking" <> 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.
     
    , Nov 25, 2006
    #5
  6. Doug McIntyre

    Make Guest

    Make, Nov 25, 2006
    #6
  7. Doug McIntyre

    Merv Guest

    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
     
    Merv, Nov 25, 2006
    #7
  8. "Merv" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
     
    Eric The Viking, Nov 25, 2006
    #8
  9. Doug McIntyre

    stephen Guest

    "Eric The Viking" <> wrote in message
    news:45682ec7.0@entanet...
    >
    > "Merv" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > 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

    - replace xyz with ntl
     
    stephen, Nov 25, 2006
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Guan Foo Wah
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    21,647
  2. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    686
    garrisb
    Apr 27, 2006
  3. hkyejian02
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    648
    hkyejian02
    Nov 27, 2007
  4. hkyejian02
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    525
    hkyejian02
    Jan 2, 2008
  5. hkyejian02
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    745
    hkyejian02
    Jan 11, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page