[AusNOG] Console Server with Digital I/O

[Shane Chrisp]

Hi All,

 I am reaching out the list to see if anyone on list has come across a 
Console server with ~8-16 serial ports along with similar number of 
Digital I/O's?


I would rather not have to reinvent the wheel if I can avoid it.

--
Regards

Shane Chrisp
2000 Computers & Networks Pty Ltd
U8, 19 Outram St, West Perth, WA 6005
Ph 08 6298 7391 Fx 08 6298 7393
Mb 0412 409 856
Email sh...@2000cn.com.au
Web http://www.2000cn.com.au

___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Switch installation in data centre racks - front facing, or rear facing?

[Sam Silvester]

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Paul Wilkins 
wrote:

> Sure, but when one observes the default vendor position is front to back
> airflow, if one then applies logic, you can conclude back to front is
> deployed as a cost cutting measure sans structured cabling.
>
>
I don't understand is where structured cabling comes into this at all,
unless we're defining what structured cabling means differently.
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Switch installation in data centre racks - front facing, or rear facing?

[Paul Wilkins]

Sure, but when one observes the default vendor position is front to back
airflow, if one then applies logic, you can conclude back to front is
deployed as a cost cutting measure sans structured cabling.

Kind regards

Paul Wilkins

On 4 October 2017 at 16:10, Jay Dixon  wrote:

> I think Sam's point was that the original email/question was asking purely
> about direction front or back, not whether you use TOR switches or
> structured cabling back to a central point :)
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Paul Wilkins 
> wrote:
>
>> Sam,
>> In an SP environment, you may well have whole rows dedicated to a single
>> service - email, or web say. In the rack itself, you'll have web_node_5007,
>> web_node_5008 etc.
>>
>> In the enterprise, you'll have a few email blades, internal web, external
>> web, next to a bunch of file and print etc etc etc. These then likely are
>> all on different firewall interfaces/firewalls in different zones requiring
>> different routing and security.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Paul Wilkins
>>
>> On 4 October 2017 at 15:41, Sam Silvester 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Paul Wilkins 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Because SPs have the luxury to not use structured cabling, due to scale
 where all switch ports share a common configuration, so there's no need for
 a patch panel, just patch direct to the switch, whereas in enterprise,
 inadvertent swapping of ports leads to P1s, hence, structured cabling is
 fairly ubiquitous.


>>> I'm not sure I understand.
>>>
>>> We're talking about "ToR" switching in this thread i.e. switches share a
>>> rack with the servers in question.
>>>
>>> In both front and rear mounted switches, I'd assume all cables go direct
>>> from the server to the switch. If that's not what you mean, can you perhaps
>>> share what kind of cabling arrangement you've come across? I'd be
>>> interested in how it would work and what logic would go into such a
>>> decision.
>>>
>>> I'm also not sure how such a distinction between enterprise and SP would
>>> change anything. SPs would still have a mapping of server to port, it's not
>>> like just any server / cable goes into any old port and swapping them to a
>>> new/different arrangement during a switch change wouldn't matter...or am I
>>> making an incorrect assumption there?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Sam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>>
>
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Switch installation in data centre racks - front facing, or rear facing?

[Jay Dixon]

I think Sam's point was that the original email/question was asking purely
about direction front or back, not whether you use TOR switches or
structured cabling back to a central point :)

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Paul Wilkins 
wrote:

> Sam,
> In an SP environment, you may well have whole rows dedicated to a single
> service - email, or web say. In the rack itself, you'll have web_node_5007,
> web_node_5008 etc.
>
> In the enterprise, you'll have a few email blades, internal web, external
> web, next to a bunch of file and print etc etc etc. These then likely are
> all on different firewall interfaces/firewalls in different zones requiring
> different routing and security.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Paul Wilkins
>
> On 4 October 2017 at 15:41, Sam Silvester  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Paul Wilkins 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Because SPs have the luxury to not use structured cabling, due to scale
>>> where all switch ports share a common configuration, so there's no need for
>>> a patch panel, just patch direct to the switch, whereas in enterprise,
>>> inadvertent swapping of ports leads to P1s, hence, structured cabling is
>>> fairly ubiquitous.
>>>
>>>
>> I'm not sure I understand.
>>
>> We're talking about "ToR" switching in this thread i.e. switches share a
>> rack with the servers in question.
>>
>> In both front and rear mounted switches, I'd assume all cables go direct
>> from the server to the switch. If that's not what you mean, can you perhaps
>> share what kind of cabling arrangement you've come across? I'd be
>> interested in how it would work and what logic would go into such a
>> decision.
>>
>> I'm also not sure how such a distinction between enterprise and SP would
>> change anything. SPs would still have a mapping of server to port, it's not
>> like just any server / cable goes into any old port and swapping them to a
>> new/different arrangement during a switch change wouldn't matter...or am I
>> making an incorrect assumption there?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Sam
>>
>>
>>
>
> ___
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Switch installation in data centre racks - front facing, or rear facing?

[Paul Wilkins]

Sam,
In an SP environment, you may well have whole rows dedicated to a single
service - email, or web say. In the rack itself, you'll have web_node_5007,
web_node_5008 etc.

In the enterprise, you'll have a few email blades, internal web, external
web, next to a bunch of file and print etc etc etc. These then likely are
all on different firewall interfaces/firewalls in different zones requiring
different routing and security.

Kind regards

Paul Wilkins

On 4 October 2017 at 15:41, Sam Silvester  wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Paul Wilkins 
> wrote:
>
>> Because SPs have the luxury to not use structured cabling, due to scale
>> where all switch ports share a common configuration, so there's no need for
>> a patch panel, just patch direct to the switch, whereas in enterprise,
>> inadvertent swapping of ports leads to P1s, hence, structured cabling is
>> fairly ubiquitous.
>>
>>
> I'm not sure I understand.
>
> We're talking about "ToR" switching in this thread i.e. switches share a
> rack with the servers in question.
>
> In both front and rear mounted switches, I'd assume all cables go direct
> from the server to the switch. If that's not what you mean, can you perhaps
> share what kind of cabling arrangement you've come across? I'd be
> interested in how it would work and what logic would go into such a
> decision.
>
> I'm also not sure how such a distinction between enterprise and SP would
> change anything. SPs would still have a mapping of server to port, it's not
> like just any server / cable goes into any old port and swapping them to a
> new/different arrangement during a switch change wouldn't matter...or am I
> making an incorrect assumption there?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sam
>
>
>
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Switch installation in data centre racks - front facing, or rear facing?

[Peter Tiggerdine]

that would mean the concept of patch by exception does not require
patch panels and clearly even with that methodology it's used. Seems
like some crack smoking logic there. I bet 90% of most peoples access
layer has the same configuration on their switches.

I don't think scale has anything todo with it. Sounds more about
margin, the cost of RU space and how close to the wind most SP are
flying which, in-turns means paying engineers peanuts and doing
whatever to bring the revenue in.


Regards,

Peter Tiggerdine

GPG Fingerprint: 2A3F EA19 F6C2 93C1 411D 5AB2 D5A8 E8A8 0E74 6127


On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Paul Wilkins  wrote:
> Because SPs have the luxury to not use structured cabling, due to scale
> where all switch ports share a common configuration, so there's no need for
> a patch panel, just patch direct to the switch, whereas in enterprise,
> inadvertent swapping of ports leads to P1s, hence, structured cabling is
> fairly ubiquitous.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Paul Wilkins
>
> On 4 October 2017 at 14:56, Sam Silvester  wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Paul Wilkins 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> There's enterprise racks, and SP racks and I'd say to generalise,
>>> Enterprise do the ports to the front to structured cabling, while SPs will
>>> reverse mount for shorter wire runs and density. Also swapping out reverse
>>> mounted switches is a huge pain.
>>>
>>
>> That's an interesting statement. What makes you say that? I've come across
>> sites where the front to front (cold aisle) spacing of racks is greater than
>> rear to rear (hot aisle), is that what you are getting at?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Sam
>>
>
>
> ___
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Switch installation in data centre racks - front facing, or rear facing?

[Paul Wilkins]

Because SPs have the luxury to not use structured cabling, due to scale
where all switch ports share a common configuration, so there's no need for
a patch panel, just patch direct to the switch, whereas in enterprise,
inadvertent swapping of ports leads to P1s, hence, structured cabling is
fairly ubiquitous.

Kind regards

Paul Wilkins

On 4 October 2017 at 14:56, Sam Silvester  wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Paul Wilkins 
> wrote:
>
>> There's enterprise racks, and SP racks and I'd say to generalise,
>> Enterprise do the ports to the front to structured cabling, while SPs will
>> reverse mount for shorter wire runs and density. Also swapping out reverse
>> mounted switches is a huge pain.
>>
>>
> That's an interesting statement. What makes you say that? I've come across
> sites where the front to front (cold aisle) spacing of racks is greater
> than rear to rear (hot aisle), is that what you are getting at?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sam
>
>
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Switch installation in data centre racks - front facing, or rear facing?

[Sam Silvester]

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Paul Wilkins 
wrote:

> There's enterprise racks, and SP racks and I'd say to generalise,
> Enterprise do the ports to the front to structured cabling, while SPs will
> reverse mount for shorter wire runs and density. Also swapping out reverse
> mounted switches is a huge pain.
>
>
That's an interesting statement. What makes you say that? I've come across
sites where the front to front (cold aisle) spacing of racks is greater
than rear to rear (hot aisle), is that what you are getting at?

Cheers,

Sam
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Switch installation in data centre racks - front facing, or rear facing?

[Paul Wilkins]

There's enterprise racks, and SP racks and I'd say to generalise,
Enterprise do the ports to the front to structured cabling, while SPs will
reverse mount for shorter wire runs and density. Also swapping out reverse
mounted switches is a huge pain.

Kind regards

Paul Wilkins

On 4 October 2017 at 12:55, David Hooton  wrote:

> > On 3/10/17, 10:34 pm, "AusNOG on behalf of Ken Wilson" <
> ausnog-boun...@lists.ausnog.net on behalf of ken.wil...@opengear.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Tagging onto this - does the same go for your out-of-band equipment?
> (those that have it)
> >
>
> Yes absolutely, as Nick has mentioned for his IPMI switches we generally
> use rear facing OOB everywhere. Most servers and other non networking
> equipment generally put their network ports on the back of their devices,
> it just makes sense to keep network patching all on one side of the rack so
> we don’t have cables running from front to rear. I am surprised how many
> vendors still don’t offer rear to front airflow boxes.
>
> DJH
>
> ___
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] Switch installation in data centre racks - front facing, or rear facing?

[David Hooton]

> On 3/10/17, 10:34 pm, "AusNOG on behalf of Ken Wilson" 
>  on 
> behalf of ken.wil...@opengear.com> wrote:
>
> Tagging onto this - does the same go for your out-of-band equipment? (those 
> that have it)
>
Yes absolutely, as Nick has mentioned for his IPMI switches we generally use 
rear facing OOB everywhere. Most servers and other non networking equipment 
generally put their network ports on the back of their devices, it just makes 
sense to keep network patching all on one side of the rack so we don’t have 
cables running from front to rear. I am surprised how many vendors still don’t 
offer rear to front airflow boxes.
DJH
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog