cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
4698
Views
5
Helpful
5
Replies

3750-X StackPower-Problem

Hi all,

I have a problem with a stack of four 3750-X (IPBase, 12.2(55)SE3)

Scenario:

- Sw1 and Sw2 form a power-ring

- Sw3 and Sw4 form a power-ring

- only Sw2 has an additionnal PS

The only power-config I have is the following:

stack-power stack power1

mode redundant

!

stack-power switch 2

stack power1

stack-power switch 1

stack power1

Every minute I get the following log-message:

Jul  6 13:47:47 CEST: %PLATFORM_STACKPOWER-4-PRIO_CONFLICT: Switch 1's power stack has conflicting power priorities

The Message-guide didn't help me any further ...

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/docs/switches/lan/catalyst3750x_3560x/software/release/12.2_55_se/system/message/msg_desc.html#wp1124977

Any idea what can cause these messages?

--
If you found this post helpful, please give it Kudos. If my answer solves your problem, please click Accept as Solution so others can benefit from it.
1 Accepted Solution

Accepted Solutions

Hi,

In power stack 1 the "High port priority value" is the same for both switch 1 and 2. Could change one of those to have unique values and check for errors after that?

Power stack name: power1

    Stack mode: Redundant

    Stack topology: Ring

    Switch 2:

        High port priority value: 12

    Switch 1:

        High port priority value: 12

Kind Regards,
Ivan

**Please grade this post if you find it useful.

Kind Regards,
Ivan

View solution in original post

5 Replies 5

Ivan Shirshin
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

Hi,

This message indicates there are two sets of devices (either a switch or a set of PDs) within the same power stack that have the SAME priority level (1 - 27).  If you saw this once, it's likely it just occurred while you were configuring their priorities.

Please check the priorities first and share the outputs of "show stack-power" and "show env all". If there are matching, then you need to change that. e.g.:

     Switch(config)#Stack-power switch 4
     Power-priority high 11
     Power-priority low 23
     power-prority switch 5

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst3750x_3560x/software/release/12.2_55_se/configuration/guide/swstkpwr.html#wp1016452

If it is continually happening even the output of "show stack-power" shows there are different, then there is chance you hit CSCtg20513. You can either upgrade the IOS or apply a workaround:

     - toggle the stack ports (shut/no shut) on the unit that is incorrectly reporting this error.

          config t

               stack-power switch

               standalone

               no standalone

Kind Regards,
Ivan

**Please grade this post if you find it useful.

Kind Regards,
Ivan

the toggling of the ports didn't help. The priorities are all different:

sw-ham1-core-01#show stack-p

Power stack name: power1

    Stack mode: Redundant

    Stack topology: Ring

    Switch 2:

        Power budget: 223

        Low port priority value: 20

        High port priority value: 12

        Switch priority value: 2

        Port 1 status: Connected

        Port 2 status: Connected

        Neighbor on port 1: c464.13a0.9780

        Neighbor on port 2: c464.13a0.9780

    Switch 1:

        Power budget: 223

        Low port priority value: 21

        High port priority value: 12

        Switch priority value: 5

        Port 1 status: Connected

        Port 2 status: Connected

        Neighbor on port 1: c464.13a0.b600

        Neighbor on port 2: c464.13a0.b600

Power stack name: Powerstack-3

    Stack mode: Power sharing

    Stack topology: Ring

    Switch 4:

        Power budget: 190

        Low port priority value: 22

        High port priority value: 13

        Switch priority value: 4

        Port 1 status: Connected

        Port 2 status: Connected

        Neighbor on port 1: 503d.e5c8.0d80

        Neighbor on port 2: 503d.e5c8.0d80

    Switch 3:

        Power budget: 190

        Low port priority value: 21

        High port priority value: 12

        Switch priority value: 3

        Port 1 status: Connected

        Port 2 status: Connected

        Neighbor on port 1: 503d.e5c8.1f00

        Neighbor on port 2: 503d.e5c8.1f00

sw-ham1-core-01#sh env a

FAN 1 is OK

FAN 2 is OK

FAN PS-1 is OK

FAN PS-2 is NOT PRESENT

TEMPERATURE is OK

Temperature Value: 29 Degree Celsius

Temperature State: GREEN

Yellow Threshold : 46 Degree Celsius

Red Threshold    : 60 Degree Celsius

SW  PID                 Serial#     Status           Sys Pwr  PoE Pwr  Watts

--  ------------------  ----------  ---------------  -------  -------  -----

1A  C3KX-PWR-350WAC     LIT154009G8  OK              Good     Good     350/0

1B  Not Present      

2A  C3KX-PWR-350WAC     LIT154100KM  OK              Good     Good     350/0

2B  C3KX-PWR-715WAC     LIT154314Z1  OK              Good     Good     715/0

3A  C3KX-PWR-350WAC     LIT145108RW  OK              Good     Good     350/0

3B  Not Present      

4A  C3KX-PWR-350WAC     LIT145108S6  OK              Good     Good     350/0

4B  Not Present      

SW  Status          RPS Name          RPS Serial#  RPS Port#

--  -------------   ----------------  -----------  ---------

1   Not Present     <>

2   Not Present     <>

3   Not Present     <>

4   Not Present     <>

--
If you found this post helpful, please give it Kudos. If my answer solves your problem, please click Accept as Solution so others can benefit from it.

Hi,

In power stack 1 the "High port priority value" is the same for both switch 1 and 2. Could change one of those to have unique values and check for errors after that?

Power stack name: power1

    Stack mode: Redundant

    Stack topology: Ring

    Switch 2:

        High port priority value: 12

    Switch 1:

        High port priority value: 12

Kind Regards,
Ivan

**Please grade this post if you find it useful.

Kind Regards,
Ivan

Thanks Ivan, that did it! I wasn't aware that also these High-values had to be different.

--
If you found this post helpful, please give it Kudos. If my answer solves your problem, please click Accept as Solution so others can benefit from it.

welcome, Karsten!

Kind Regards,
Ivan