Comware

Any Cisco stackwise equivalent on HP switches?
Even DELL and DLink has something similiar...

no Alessandro
no include stackwise equivalent system on procurve device
because procurve have different network architecture

http://www.procurve.com/NR/rdonlyres/B212453B-3531-4049-8173-A9B8AE24E863/0/ProCurveNetworkingAdaptiveEdgeArchitecture_Mar_06_WW_Eng_Ltr.pdf

Different network topology is not an answer.
I can make an HP-like network topology with cisco 2960 at edge and cisco 3750 as a core with no differences between HP solution.

StackWise is really usefull if you need to archieve redundancy and port aggregation.
With stackwise you can aggregate port1 on switch1 with port5 on switch4.

for example, I have one 2610 with 2 gigabit uplink.

With a stackwise aggregation switch I can aggregate port 25 and 26 on the 2610 to port1 on core switch1 and port1 on core switch2.
Redundancy and aggregation with just 2 cable.

Without stackwise I have to buy two gigabit transcever for the 2610 and I have to aggregate port 25 and 26 to port 1 and 2 on core switch1, and port27 and 28 to port 1 and 2 on coreswitch2.

4 cable, more trouble, less redundancy.
More over, I have to implement MSTP and STP to prevent loop and balancing between trunks.

Alessandro,

the only thing comparable to StackWise in features is to use a chassis, like let's say a 5400zl. ProCurve has no true stacking in portfolio (what they call stacking is a management-only clustering hack of questionable benefit). Given that other vendors have chassis too and chassis are usually in another league, that makes it a hard sell.

HTH,
Andre.

That's not true.
Like I say before, stack is even for redundancy.

If I buy an procurve chassis switch, I have not redundancy but only port aggregation.

For example, a 5400 with two 24 port modules will give to me 48ports and NO redundancy. If the chassis goes down, the whole switch goes down.

With a Cisco (or even with SMC TigerStack cheaper like a traditional procurve) I can stack two or more switch having 48ports.
If one switch fails, the other is still up and I have full redundancy.

>That's not true.

Did you read what Andre wrote?

> Did you read what Andre wrote?

Yes, and that is not true.
Stackwise is not only a port aggregation like Andre wrote.

With a 5400 I have port aggregation but NO redundancy.

If I want redundancy I need to Use xSTP, with stack is no needed.

>Yes, and that is not true.
>Stackwise is not only a port aggregation like Andre wrote.

No, he did not wrote that.

He wrote that Procurve has no true stacking and the only thing that could be "comparable" in Procurve products would be to use a multi-modul chassis. He never wrote anything what Stackwise is or is not.

A multimodule chassis is NON comparable to a stacking. A multimodule chassis is NON redundant and IS ONLY for port aggregation.

Multimodule chassis and stacking are two different things and not comparable.

"Comparable" does not mean "equal". If someone says that feature X does not exist, but the closest comparable feature is Y - then he is not saying that X=Y.

Using a multimodule chassis will not give you backplane redundancy, but at least port redundancy if your trunk ports is located on different modules. That will be the closest comparable feature using a Procurve switch, which already have been said.