Stackwise-480 versus Stackwise Virtual

Jun 23, 2018
2
0
10
I am setting up switching for a very small business environment and a pair of Cisco 3850-24XS switches were purchased to use as stacked aggregators for a bunch of 2960S and 2960X switches. The 3850 switches are then connected to the internet via a firewall. We plan on setting up the 3850s so they act like one switch; ie stacking. We plan on using etherchannel LACP port group from the 2960s uplinks ( one link each ) to the 3850s. So, which stacking technology is better to use on the 3850s, stackwise-480 or stackwise virtual and technically, why?
 
Jun 23, 2018
2
0
10
Thank-you for your response. I was wondering if anyone was reading this thread.

That is a nice brief article, but it doesn't actually give a side by side feature comparison of why Stackwise Virtual is better when using the 3850XS as an aggregate or Distributed switch compared to using Stackwise-480.

On the surface, it is easy to think Stackwise-480 seems a better option for collocated Cisco 3850-24XS switches because:

1. In Stackwise-480, I don't loose up to five of my network ports.

2. Stackwise-480 provides a 480 Gbps connection between switches vice a 40Gbps (four 10Gbps connections).

Obviously there is something deeper in the switch on how it handles forwarding that makes a difference (latency?) but there is no side by side table that I have seen that states the rational at a deeper level with performance metrics or forwarding issues.

Unfortunately, the following (dated) Cisco article seems to state the only difference is that Stackwise Virtual allows you to separate the switches over a greater distance. If that is the only reason to use Stackwise Virtual, I can save myself some ports as the two switches are collocated in the same rack.
https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/switches/catalyst-3850-series-switches/q-and-a-c67-738577.pdf