Wireless Access

Hello,

We are running  Aruba6000 5.0.4.9.

We need to know what setting to enable to insure that if there is a issue

the AC will create a crash file please.

Thank you,

Scott

---

@ssteves wrote:

Hello,

 

We are running  Aruba6000 5.0.4.9.

We need to know what setting to enable to insure that if there is a issue

the AC will create a crash file please.

 

Thank you,

Scott

---

The file itself is created automatically.  If you type "show version" it will tell you if there is a crash file.  "tar crash" on the commandline will create a crash.tar file that you can copy off the controller via ftp and tftp.  Send that file, if it exists to support for processing.

Thank you for the response, much appreicated.

For some reason the AC is simply locking up, CPU utilization goes to zero.

AC at that point not even responding to ping............

Have to reboot and everything comes back up.......

Never a crash file generated.......any ideas?

Currently have a TAC case........

Looking at files system all 3 show the same

Filesystem                Size      Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/root                68.4M     64.6M      3.7M  95% /
none                     70.0M      2.7M     67.3M   4% /tmp
/dev/hda3               149.7M     17.2M    124.7M  12% /flash

Yet sll three

have different amounts of data on them.....output seems to be static????

How often does it happen and how long has it been happening?

Sometimes twice a day, other times it will go for a few weeks.

Looking to diagnose yet not syslogs or crashfiles.........

Have another AC running same code with 105 AP's running fine.

This ones that has issues as 123 AP's on it.

Watching CPU and mem and CPU does spike on occassion to 85% yet never

stays for more than a few seconds...........

Got on console twice and gathered show tech and sent up to TAC.....

Realize this is old AC and code yet latest we can run on these........

One is very stable and the other not so much.

Any help much appreciated!!

Thanks!

---

@ssteves wrote:

Sometimes twice a day, other times it will go for a few weeks.

Looking to diagnose yet not syslogs or crashfiles.........

Have another AC running same code with 105 AP's running fine.

This ones that has issues as 123 AP's on it.

Watching CPU and mem and CPU does spike on occassion to 85% yet never

stays for more than a few seconds...........

Got on console twice and gathered show tech and sent up to TAC.....

Realize this is old AC and code yet latest we can run on these........

One is very stable and the other not so much.

Any help much appreciated!!

Thanks!

---

How is this current 6000 connected to the switched network?  We recommend 1 gigabit ethernet connection for each 100 acess points.

We have two Gig uplinks going to switched infrustructure.

Can append config if that would assist?

Is it a port channel or are they two separate links?

These are two seperate uplinks.

---

@ssteves wrote:

These are two seperate uplinks.

---

So, I want to say that you would probably be best served if you have a port-channel, at least for all of the access point traffic coming into the controller spread across two physical interfaces.  That way you will know that the AP traffic would be aggregated so that you can pass more than 1 gig of AP traffic.

Ok, thank you for this information. Much appreicated.

I am fairly new to Wireless so am i understanding correctly the uplink configs for 2/24 and 2/25?

---

@ssteves wrote:

Ok, thank you for this information. Much appreicated.

I am fairly new to Wireless so am i understanding correctly the uplink configs for 2/24 and 2/25?

 

---

What kind of switch is the controller connected to?

Before you change anything, I would type "show interface <interface name>"  for 2/24 and 2/25 to see if you have any errors on them.  You do have them statically configured with speed and duplex, but if the other side is on auto, it is possible that it negotiates wrong, has errors and that will randomly limit you throughput.

Out of curiosity, what makes 1 uplink per 100 AP's a general rule of thumb?  We have ~200-300 but never see the link saturated above 200M so wouldn't that second uplink be a waste? (besides redundancy of course)...

---

@mleja2 wrote:

Out of curiosity, what makes 1 uplink per 100 AP's a general rule of thumb?  We have ~200-300 but never see the link saturated above 200M so wouldn't that second uplink be a waste? (besides redundancy of course)...

---

mleja2,

More than one uplink would be port-channeled so that the traffic could be shared between the uplinks.  If you have no issues, stay with that you have.  This suggestion is specifically responding to what is in this thread.

For users that have congestion issues and unexplained pauses, that is what I would recommend to rule out that uplink as a bottleneck.  There is traffic bursting which can get way above what is measured for short periods of time and that could cause  congestion...

Ah, thanks for the response.  Makes sense.