We have two HP 2920-48G. Our vendor told us, that we should create a virtual switch that extends over both physical switches. That way I don't have to manage two physical switches, but only one virtual switch and I could create a LACP with 8 ports, having 4 ports on each switch.

All I could find in the manual was how to stack both switches using stacking modules. Out vendor told us, that stacking modules are not required to create a virtual switch with both 2920's.

I didn't find the 'virtual switch' thing he was talking about. Is his statement even right?

I know there is a similar question HP 2920 - Can stack without stacking module?, but my vendor explicitly stated that stacking would be something different. The other thing about that question is that one persons answers it with "yes" and another person with "no".

1 Answer 1


Actually your definition of stacking is correct, and your vendor's not. However he might be referring to traditional HP Stacking, which indeed isn't "true" stacking at all.

Bigger HP switches are stacked with iRF, which 2920 doesn't do. You do need the stacking kits to create a single virtual switch out of 2 physical ones.

HP Whitepaper on 2920 stacking

  • How does that traditional stacking look like?
    – Daniel
    Commented Jun 29, 2015 at 13:38
  • Stack makes one logical switch out of many; you have one management plane. Cluster makes one virtual switch, but you still have multiple, independent switches. Depending on the system (not sure of HP), the cluster simply creates a single entry point (one IP) to manage all the switches, but you have to connect to each switch to configure it. A stack is definitely what you want.
    – Ricky
    Commented Jun 29, 2015 at 20:36
  • Ricky's right.on older HP Procurve devices "stack" simply refers to a single IP management. You configure one of your switches to be the stack manager, and the members to automatically join. After that you access all the members of the stack via manager's CLI. There's no redundancy, if the stack mgr goes down you lose remote access to all the stack members. Which you can prevent by configuring each member with an individual IP... but that kinda defeats the purpose, IMO. Commented Sep 26, 2015 at 12:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.