If you are seeking power redundancy, you wil be happy to evaluate another
kind of solutions:
http://www.apc.com/products/family/index.cfm?id=14
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
Cisco should make at least one 1U switch with real dual power
built into the chassis or bring back a real RPS.
Ah, but they *do* make such a switch. It's called the ME3400.
There's also the 3750 Metro, the Catalyst 4948 and the ME-4900.
-A
___
On 10/1/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cisco should make at least one 1U switch with real dual power
built into the chassis or bring back a real RPS.
Ah, but they *do* make such a switch. It's called the ME3400. Available
in both AC and DC versions. We use the DC version,
At 03:19 AM 10/2/2007, Terje Bless wrote:
On 10/1/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cisco should make at least one 1U switch with real dual power
built into the chassis or bring back a real RPS.
Ah, but they *do* make such a switch. It's called the ME3400. Available
in
Agreed, what is so difficult about 1U plus dual power and 48 ports?
That it would undercut several of their other products.
For a data centre where you might have dozens of these, it is essential.
We use Allied Telesyn switches, as their 8948 is a 1U box with dual
power for a
Cisco should make at least one 1U 24 port GigE switch with real dual
power built into the chassis for under $1000 street price or bring
back a real RPS. I don't need L3 features for most applications.
That's where our 6500s come in. We just need a switch for customer
server setups in our
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 10:01:27AM +0100, Phil Mayers wrote:
They're not stupid.
Regarding the design of the RPS-675, I challenge that statement.
I mean, even Dell can get this right.
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
Terje Bless wrote:
On the RPS-300, we didn't do the checking we should have before buying
and ended up with what for us were essentially 30 boat anchors. My
conclusion in the end was that it's much better to keep (in our case)
a bunch of spare 3524s (another brilliant purchase, *sigh*) and
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 11:12 +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 10:01:27AM +0100, Phil Mayers wrote:
They're not stupid.
Regarding the design of the RPS-675, I challenge that statement.
Hoho! I should re-phrase:
Cisco have a good grasp of the monetary aspects of
We are looking at options to provide redundancy for the internal A/C power
supply in some 3550-48-EMIs. It seems that the following RPS models will work:
RPS-300
RPS-675
RPS-2300
We plan to do a 1-1 config (1 RPS for 1 switch), so we are leaning towards the
RPS-300 for cost reasons.
I've
Hello,
On 10/01/2007 06:07 PM, TCIS List Acct wrote:
I've reviewed various threads in the archive, and see where others have had
problems with the RPS-300's allowing fall-back to the internal A/C power
supply
after it has taken over on the DC source. Was this an IOS issue, a hardware
TCIS List Acct wrote:
We are looking at options to provide redundancy for the internal A/C power
supply in some 3550-48-EMIs. It seems that the following RPS models will
work:
RPS-300
RPS-675
RPS-2300
We plan to do a 1-1 config (1 RPS for 1 switch), so we are leaning towards
the
Daniel Suchy wrote:
Hello,
On 10/01/2007 06:07 PM, TCIS List Acct wrote:
I've reviewed various threads in the archive, and see where others have had
problems with the RPS-300's allowing fall-back to the internal A/C power
supply
after it has taken over on the DC source. Was this an
Seth Mattinen wrote:
Hardware. There is no way to get the device (in my case, some 2811's on
a single RPS-300) to go back to internal power without reloading once
it's switched over to the RPS. Switching back causes the device to lose
power. You should not expect any kind of real
Seth Mattinen wrote:
I've tried it; doesn't work on my gear. I'd always plan for full outage
though if you ever have to switch back to internal power.
The RPS-600 was so much better than what's being passed off as a
redundant power supply these days... I never bothered using the AC
TCIS List Acct wrote:
Seth Mattinen wrote:
I've tried it; doesn't work on my gear. I'd always plan for full outage
though if you ever have to switch back to internal power.
The RPS-600 was so much better than what's being passed off as a
redundant power supply these days... I never
At 03:21 PM 10/1/2007, you wrote:
The RPS-600 was so much better than what's being passed off as a
redundant power supply these days... I never bothered using the AC
input on the device when it was hooked up to a RPS-600 since it had dual
AC and you could use the dual-head RPS cable to give it
Cisco should make at least one 1U switch with real dual power
built into the chassis or bring back a real RPS.
Ah, but they *do* make such a switch. It's called the ME3400. Available
in both AC and DC versions. We use the DC version, seems to work fine.
Somewhat higher price tag than your
18 matches
Mail list logo
