On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 03:38:15PM -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Anyway, wasn't the Open Compute Project supposed to fix all this?
> Why not just require OCP in all RFPs?
https://xkcd.com/927/
I think the primary issue for front- vs rear-mounted switches is cooling. As
long as you use switches that can pull cooling air from either the front or the
back, it’s feasible to mount the TOR switches in the back.
For example, I think these are parts I used to order for Cisco Catalyst
Folks,
I kind of started to doubt my perception (we don't officially calculate
it) of our failure rates until Mel provided this:
"That’s about the right failure rate for a population of 1000 switches.
Enterprise switches typically have an MTBF of 700,000 hours or so, and 1000
switches operating
On 9/25/21 7:52 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 04:23:38PM -0700, Jay Hennigan wrote:
On 9/25/21 16:14, George Herbert wrote:
(Crying, thinking about racks and racks and racks of AT 56k modems
strapped to shelves above PM-2E-30s???)
And all of their wall-warts [...]
You were
That’s about the right failure rate for a population of 1000 switches.
Enterprise switches typically have an MTBF of 700,000 hours or so, and 1000
switches operating 8760 hours (24x7) a year would be 8,760,000 hours. Divided
by 12 failures (one a month), yields an MTBF of 730,000 hours.
-mel
On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:48:38PM -0700, Andrey Khomyakov wrote:
> We operate over 1000 switches in our data centers, and hardware failures
> that require a switch swap are common enough where the speed of swap starts
> to matter to some extent. We probably swap a switch or two a month.
...
This
* Andrey Khomyakov
> Interesting tidbit is that we actually used to manufacture custom rails for
> our Juniper EX4500 switches so the switch can be actually inserted from the
> back of the rack (you know, where most of your server ports are...) and not
> be blocked by the zero-U PDUs and all
, they’ll
probably slow things down compared with basic (good, bad ones exist) rack rails.
I write all of this from the perspective of a network engineer, businesswoman,
and telecom carrier - not necessarily that of a hyperscale cloud compute
provider, although we are becoming one of those too
> We operate over 1000 switches in our data centers, and hardware failures that
> require a switch swap are common enough where the speed of swap starts to
> matter to some extent. We probably swap a switch or two a month.
having operated a network of over 2000 switches, where we would see
On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 04:23:38PM -0700, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> On 9/25/21 16:14, George Herbert wrote:
> >(Crying, thinking about racks and racks and racks of AT 56k modems
> >strapped to shelves above PM-2E-30s???)
>
> And all of their wall-warts [...]
You were doing it wrong, then. :-)
On 9/25/21 16:14, George Herbert wrote:
(Crying, thinking about racks and racks and racks of AT 56k modems strapped
to shelves above PM-2E-30s…)
And all of their wall-warts and serial cables
The early 90s were a dangerous place, man.
Yes, but the good news is that shortly thereafter
(Crying, thinking about racks and racks and racks of AT 56k modems strapped
to shelves above PM-2E-30s…)
The early 90s were a dangerous place, man.
-George
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 24, 2021, at 8:05 PM, Wayne Bouchard wrote:
>
> Didn't require any additional time at all when equipment
Why about thinks like the Cisco 4500 switch series that are almost as long as a
1u server. But yet only has mounts for a relay type rack.
As far as boot times, try a Asr920. Wait 15 minutes and decide if it’s time to
power cycle again or wait 5 more minutes
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep
On 9/25/21 2:08 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
On 9/25/21 13:55, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
My personal itch is how new equipment seems to have even worse boot
time than previous generations. I am currently installing juniper
acx710 and while they are nice, they also make me wait 15 minutes to
boot.
On Sat Sep 25, 2021 at 12:48:38PM -0700, Andrey Khomyakov wrote:
> We are looking at Nvidia (former Mellanox) switches
If I was going to rule any out based on rails it'd be their half width
model. Craziest rails I've seen. It's actually a frame that sits inside
the rack rails so you need qu
> On Sep 25, 2021, at 12:48 , Andrey Khomyakov
> wrote:
> Let me just say from the get go that no one is making toolless rails a
> priority to the point of shutting vendors out of the evaluation process. I am
> not quite sure why that assumption was made by at least a few folks. With
>
On 9/25/21 13:55, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
My personal itch is how new equipment seems to have even worse boot time
than previous generations. I am currently installing juniper acx710 and
while they are nice, they also make me wait 15 minutes to boot. This is
a tremendous waste of time during
The "niceness" of equipment does factor in but it might be invisible. For
example if you like junipers cli environment, you will look at their stuff
first even if you do not have it explicitly in your requirement list.
Better rack rails will make slightly more people prefer your gear
Well, folks, the replies have certainly been interesting. I did get my
answer, which seems to be "no one cares", which, in turn, explains why
network equipment manufacturers give very little to no attention to this
problem. A point of clarification is I'm talking about the problem in the
context
Hi,
> On 24 Sep 2021, at 12:37, Andrey Khomyakov wrote:
>
> (you know, where most of your server ports are…)
Port side intake (switch at the front of the rack) is generally better for
cooling the optical modules. The extra cabling difficulty is worth it.
Also, as others said, choosing an
- On Sep 24, 2021, at 11:19 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Hi,
> Seriously, the physical build of network equipment is not entirely
> competent.
Except, sometimes there is little choice. Look at 400G QSFP-DD for
example. Those optics can generate up to 20 watts of heat that needs
On 9/24/21 10:58 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> Meh… Turn off power supply input switch, open chassis carefully, apply
> high-wattage 1Ω resistor across capacitor terminals for 10 seconds.
>
If dealing with a charged capacitor, do not use a low resistance such as a
ohm. This is the same as
Didn't require any additional time at all when equipment wasn't bulky
enough to need rails in the first place
I've never been happy about that change.
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 09:37:58AM -0700, Andrey Khomyakov wrote:
> Hi folks,
> Happy Friday!
>
> Would you, please, share your thoughts
> On Sep 24, 2021, at 3:35 PM, Niels Bakker wrote:
>
> * c...@cmadams.net (Chris Adams) [Sat 25 Sep 2021, 00:17 CEST]:
>> Which - why do I have to order different part numbers for back to front
>> airflow? It's just a fan, can't it be made reversible? Seems like that
>> would be cheaper
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 1:34 PM Jay Hennigan wrote:
> On 9/24/21 09:37, Andrey Khomyakov wrote:
>
> > *So ultimately my question to you all is how much do you care about the
> > speed of racking and unracking equipment and do you tell your suppliers
> > that you care? How much does the time it
Once upon a time, Niels Bakker said:
> * c...@cmadams.net (Chris Adams) [Sat 25 Sep 2021, 00:17 CEST]:
> >Which - why do I have to order different part numbers for back to
> >front airflow? It's just a fan, can't it be made reversible?
> >Seems like that would be cheaper than stocking alternate
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 3:36 PM Niels Bakker wrote:
> * c...@cmadams.net (Chris Adams) [Sat 25 Sep 2021, 00:17 CEST]:
> >Which - why do I have to order different part numbers for back to
> >front airflow? It's just a fan, can't it be made reversible? Seems
> >like that would be cheaper than
* c...@cmadams.net (Chris Adams) [Sat 25 Sep 2021, 00:17 CEST]:
Which - why do I have to order different part numbers for back to
front airflow? It's just a fan, can't it be made reversible? Seems
like that would be cheaper than stocking alternate part numbers.
The fan is inside the power
Once upon a time, William Herrin said:
> I care, but it bothers me less that the inconsiderate air flow
> implemented in quite a bit of network gear. Side cooling? Pulling air
> from the side you know will be facing the hot aisle? Seriously, the
> physical build of network equipment is not
Andrey Khomyakov wrote:
Hi folks,
Happy Friday!
Interesting tidbit is that we actually used to manufacture custom
rails for our Juniper EX4500 switches so the switch can be actually
inserted from the back of the rack (you know, where most of your
server ports are...) and not be blocked
I’ve seen Dell rack equipment leap for safety (ultimately very very
unsuccessfully…) in big earthquakes. Lots of rack screws for me.
-George
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 24, 2021, at 9:41 AM, Andrey Khomyakov
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi folks,
> Happy Friday!
>
> Would you, please, share your
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 02:49:53PM -0500, Doug McIntyre wrote:
> You mention about hardware lockin, but I wouldn't trust Dell to not switch
> out the design on their "next-gen" product, when they buy from a
> different OEM, as they are want to do, changing from OEM to OEM for
> each new product
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 09:37:58AM -0700, Andrey Khomyakov wrote:
> We selected Dell switches in part due
> to Dell using "quick rails'' (sometimes known as speed rails or toolless
> rails).
Hmm, I haven't had any of those on any of my Dell switches, but then
again, I haven't bought in in
Considering that the typical $5 pieces of bent metal list for ~$500 from most
vendors, can you imagine the price of fancy tool-less rack kits?
Brand new switch: $2,000
Rack kit: $2,000
-Randy
Of Andrey Khomyakov
Sent: September 24, 2021 12:38
To: Nanog
Subject: Rack rails on network equipment
This message was sent from outside of Sheridan College. Please be careful when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to requests for information.
Hi folks,
Happy Friday!
Would you
Hi,
In my opinion:
That time you take to rack devices with classic rail can be
viewed as a bounding moment and, while appreciated by the device, will
reducing downtime issues on the long run that you may have if you just
rack & slap 'em.
It is also Friday =D.
-
. The amount of time required to do the initial
install is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
-richey
From: NANOG on behalf of
Andrey Khomyakov
Date: Friday, September 24, 2021 at 12:38 PM
To: Nanog
Subject: Rack rails on network equipment
Hi folks,
Happy Friday!
Would you
Andrey, hi.
The speed rails are nice, and are effective in optimizing the time it takes
to rack equipment. It's pretty much par for the course on servers today
(thank goodness!), and not so much on network equipment. I suppose the
reasons being what others have mentioned - longevity of service
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 9:39 AM Andrey Khomyakov
wrote:
> Interesting tidbit is that we actually used to manufacture custom rails for
> our Juniper EX4500 switches so the switch can be actually inserted from the
> back of the rack (you know, where most of your server ports are...) and not
> be
> You mention a 25-minute difference between racking a no-tools rail kit and
> one that requires a screwdriver. At any reasonable hourly rate for someone
> to rack and stack that is a very small percentage of the cost of the
> hardware. If a device that takes half an hour to rack is $50 cheaper
On 9/24/21 09:37, Andrey Khomyakov wrote:
*So ultimately my question to you all is how much do you care about the
speed of racking and unracking equipment and do you tell your suppliers
that you care? How much does the time it takes to install or replace a
switch impact you?*
Very little. I
On Fri Sep 24, 2021 at 09:37:58AM -0700, Andrey Khomyakov wrote:
> As far as I know, Dell is the only switch vendor doing toolless rails
Having fought for hours trying to get servers with those
rails into some DCs racks I'd go with slightly slow but fits
everywhere
> *So ultimately my question
On 9/24/21 10:37 AM, Andrey Khomyakov wrote:
So ultimately my question to you all is how much do you care about the
speed of racking and unracking equipment and do you tell your suppliers
that you care? How much does the time it takes to install or replace a
switch impact you?
I was having a
We don’t care. We rack up switches maybe once or twice a year. It’s just not
worth the effort to streamline. If we were installing dozens of switches a
month, maybe. But personally I think it’s crazy to make rackability your
primary reason for choosing a switch vendor. Do you base your
Hi folks,
Happy Friday!
Would you, please, share your thoughts on the following matter?
Back some 5 years ago we pulled the trigger and started phasing out Cisco
and Juniper switching products out of our data centers (reasons for that
are not quite relevant to the topic). We selected Dell
's
> adapters and things, but they're a pain as well. At least with a 4-post
> square-hole rack you can get 80% of what you want to fit.
>
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: "Coy Hile"
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 5:31pm
> To: "Karsten Elfenbein"
tyle rack and put them in a 2-post neatly. There's adapters and
things, but they're a pain as well. At least with a 4-post square-hole rack
you can get 80% of what you want to fit.
-Original Message-
From: "Coy Hile"
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 5:31pm
To: "Karsten Elfe
2-post racks (typically 23" not 19” however 19 is making a dent) are still very
common in MPOE rooms and OSP plant termination.Minimal space consumption is
the prime reason.
Frankly most fiber patch panels are a foot deep and DWDM gear has been designed
to be that profile too.
Many
> On Mar 30, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Karsten Elfenbein
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> something like https://www.opencompute.org/projects/rack-and-power
> comes into my mind for that.
> Mounting on 4 posts should be the default. It is insane what some
> vendors want to mount on 2 posts only.
>
That
Hi,
something like https://www.opencompute.org/projects/rack-and-power
comes into my mind for that.
Mounting on 4 posts should be the default. It is insane what some
vendors want to mount on 2 posts only.
Regards, Karsten
Am Mo., 30. März 2020 um 19:46 Uhr schrieb Baldur Norddahl
:
>>
>>
>
> I
>
>
>
I have considered making my own rails using a laser cutting service. I have
done this before where I created 500 mm to 19 inch rack adapters and had
them laser cut at lasergist.com. Fairly simple really, just make a drawing
in Fusion360 and upload the drawing. A few days later the adapters
Not sure to be honest, I see the following though which may work just not sure
how thin this one is. I noticed in the DOCs it says not to use if placing
directly on top of another device, which you could assume might mean it's too
thick.
BTI7801 Chassis Support Bracket Kit (BT8A78SSB3)
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 07:09:48PM +0300, Nitzan Tzelniker wrote:
> We tried to flip the sides of rails in QFX5120 and it cause two problems
> that prevent us from keeping it this way
> 1. The switch was 2 cm from the rear post line
> 2. The switch vibrate as you can see in the video
>
We tried to flip the sides of rails in QFX5120 and it cause two problems
that prevent us from keeping it this way
1. The switch was 2 cm from the rear post line
2. The switch vibrate as you can see in the video
https://photos.app.goo.gl/WQwcE9vcPjSiEi9N9
Nitzan
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 6:54 PM
* Cummings, Chris
> Now that you say that, I think you're right. I am referring specifically to
> the EX4650 and they are the cheesy type where the rear half of the rail stays
> screwed in to the rack and the front half of the rail is attached to the
> switch. I assume it is the same on the
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 05:27:44PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Chuck Anderson
>
> > The point is that the switches need to be removable without empty
> > space above/below, and ideally from the rear side of the rack. By
> > having extending/sliding rails, you can lift out or drop in the
Now that you say that, I think you're right. I am referring specifically to the
EX4650 and they are the cheesy type where the rear half of the rail stays
screwed in to the rack and the front half of the rail is attached to the
switch. I assume it is the same on the QFX since they are very
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 03:15:54PM +, Cummings, Chris wrote:
> Juniper's ToR switches have slide in rails. They are a bit frustrating
> compared to Dell easy rails, but they do the trick.
You can slide the switch in/out while attached securely to the rails? That is
news to me and my QFX5k
* Chuck Anderson
> The point is that the switches need to be removable without empty
> space above/below, and ideally from the rear side of the rack. By
> having extending/sliding rails, you can lift out or drop in the switch
> after you slide it out. Then you can remove the rails.
>
> With
I've been asking manufacturers for proper server-like slide-rails for
their switches for years. Now they've started making the switches as
deep or even deeper than servers, but they still use the same old rack
ear mounting method.
The Arista 4 post rack kits are pretty good. Toolless as
Juniper's ToR switches have slide in rails. They are a bit frustrating compared
to Dell easy rails, but they do the trick.
--
Chris
On 3/30/20, 10:14, "NANOG on behalf of Tore Anderson" wrote:
* Luke Guillory
> I've had gear that came with a small rear support shelf that didn't
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:09:25AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Chuck Anderson said:
> > I've been asking manufacturers for proper server-like slide-rails for their
> > switches for years. Now they've started making the switches as deep or
> > even deeper than servers, but
* Luke Guillory
> I've had gear that came with a small rear support shelf that didn't had to
> the height, RGB Networks BNPs for example. I'm pretty sure we've used these
> with the BNPs one on top of the other.
>
> Page 16 in this PDF shows the shelf.
>
>
Once upon a time, Chuck Anderson said:
> I've been asking manufacturers for proper server-like slide-rails for their
> switches for years. Now they've started making the switches as deep or even
> deeper than servers, but they still use the same old rack ear mounting method.
Maybe it's
I've had gear that came with a small rear support shelf that didn't had to the
height, RGB Networks BNPs for example. I'm pretty sure we've used these with
the BNPs one on top of the other.
Page 16 in this PDF shows the shelf.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 04:18:18PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> When a rack has been filled up, removal/insertion through the rear will often
> be essentially impossible due to cables, vertical PDUs and stuff like that
> that gets in the way.
>
> Explained in pictures here:
>
* David Funderburk
> 2 - Do you know of any universal rail kits for 1U, 2U and 3U servers,
> routers, switches that work well? The brand names are nice but expensive.
> Thought I'd explore some cheaper options first. We use a lot of MikroTik, HP,
> Dell and some CISCO with a few other things
.
--Blake
On 3/30/2020 7:14 AM, David Funderburk wrote:
1 - We now have some time on our hands to do some things in our
storage area which includes identifying a # of rack rails found in a
box. Does anyone have any tips or tricks for identifying what
equipment rails might match?
2 - Do you
1 - We now have some time on our hands to do some things in our storage
area which includes identifying a # of rack rails found in a box. Does
anyone have any tips or tricks for identifying what equipment rails
might match?
2 - Do you know of any universal rail kits for 1U, 2U and 3U servers
69 matches
Mail list logo
