So, I had a well-working switch-profile configuration that was synchronized between my core01 and core02 switches. Until profile-revision 66, that is.
I was trying to renumber a FEX (which wasn't in use yet) and things got very discombobulated, where core01 was on revision 69 and core02 was on revision 67.
After some valiant fighting (which involved desyncing them, importing the interface, then resyncing), I now have switches that are in sync again. The only issue is that the revision numbers are different:
core01# sh switch-profile status
switch-profile : core-shared
----------------------------------------------------------
Start-time: 875074 usecs after Tue Dec 24 18:47:14 2013
End-time: 171940 usecs after Tue Dec 24 18:47:17 2013
Profile-Revision: 72
Session-type: Commit
Session-subtype: -
Peer-triggered: Yes
Profile-status: Sync Success
Local information:
----------------
Status: Commit Success
Error(s):
Peer information:
----------------
IP-address: 129.10.X.Y
Sync-status: In sync
Status: Commit Success
Error(s):
and
core02(config-sync)# sh switch-profile status
switch-profile : core-shared
----------------------------------------------------------
Start-time: 658119 usecs after Tue Dec 24 18:47:14 2013
End-time: 43352 usecs after Tue Dec 24 18:47:17 2013
Profile-Revision: 69
Session-type: Commit
Session-subtype: -
Peer-triggered: No
Profile-status: Sync Success
Local information:
----------------
Status: Commit Success
Error(s):
Peer information:
----------------
IP-address: 129.10.X.X
Sync-status: In sync
Status: Commit Success
Error(s):
My question is, how bad is this?
I've tested, and I can make changes and commit them and they are each capable of having changes made in 'config sync' which are replicated to the partner. It's just....it makes me feel icky.
Is this necessarily a bad thing? Should I do something to bring the numbers into sync?
