Jump to content
  • 0

Connecting Cisco Switch Stack to Xenserver Management port

Michael Wright1709160875




We have several Xenservers in a pool and we have connected the bonded storage ports to each of our Cisco switches that are in a stack(only 2).


We have also connected our management ports from the Xenservers to the Cisco switches. These are not bonded and connect to Access ports on the Cisco switch.

For some reason the interfaces on the Cisco keep going into a err-disabled state which are connected to these management ports. We are just using Access ports configured to use the native VLAN.

The err-disabled is being caused by loopbacks being detected on these interfaces.


How are the Xenservers constructed, could they be causing a loop, is there any special config needed?



Link to comment

10 answers to this question

Recommended Posts



We have management using vlan 1 (own subnet) 1nic

we have storage using vlan 1 (own subnet)  2 nics bonded (non etherchannel)

data using vlan 1 &50 (trunk) 1 nic


These all go to the same switch stack.


So to prevent loops we would need:

-each type of traffic on separate vlan

-would we need to use etherchannel for the storage bond? 

-as data uses 1 & 50 would other traffic not have to use either vlan.



Link to comment

Any iSCSI connections should always be on separate, unbonded, dedicated NICs. If you can use two separate switches that's good from a high availability viewpoint. Since not a bond, I'm not sure any sort of stacking is needed. We just use private nets, like 10 or 192.168 for iSCSI since packets don't have to go anywhere else other than between the server and storage device.



Link to comment

For bonding you can active/passive, active/active, or LACP.  As mentioned earlier I prefer LACP. It does require you

do so some switch configuration, but the upside is I find its more resilient and has lower failover times compared

to active/active.  If you have separate storage switches you can also use jumbo frames to squeeze more out of 

your bandwidth. I wouldn't use active/passive unless you don't want to do switch configurations for LACP and

your switches have trouble with active/active (some do).






Link to comment


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...