[103227] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: rack power question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick Clochesy)
Sun Mar 23 01:53:43 2008
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Clochesy <patrick@chegg.com>
To: david raistrick <drais@icantclick.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org, Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.0.999.0803230413260.1198@murf.icantclick.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
------=_Part_9231_16897248.1206251130257
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Basically, that is the state of things. You're paying for power (which is also cooling) and bandwidth/connectivity.
Globix is only letting us run one 30A 240V circuit per rack for "cooling reasons", however even with our 6850s we manage to populate a good portion of the rack. However, this means that for redundancy we cannot put anyone's partner in crime in the same cabinet. Though Globix is the typical cold-in-front, hot-in-back setup they still seem to be under-capacity when it comes to cooling... I think the end of the dot-com boom put a dent in their Liebert budget. It amazes me places like Hurricane can't get enough space when there are once-decent shops like Globix with so much unused space.
Plan your power requirements carefully, and plan on the ability to upgrade in the future. With the current trend of high-capacity blades, it seems that it would not be impossible to find 20-25kw per cabinet not long from now. Power distribution (if done right) is easy, cooling that density is the fun part. What's your cooling plan?
-Patrick
----- Original Message -----
From: "david raistrick" <drais@icantclick.org>
To: "Joe Greco" <jgreco@ns.sol.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 9:26:37 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles
Subject: Re: rack power question
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, Joe Greco wrote:
> Charging substantially less for rack space, even offset by higher costs for
> power, would encourage a lot of colo customers to "spread the load" around
> and not feel as obligated to maximize the use of space. That would in turn
> reduce the tendency for there to be excessive numbers of hot spots.
I wonder if we're to the point yet where we should just charge for power
and give the space away "free"....
When I'm shopping for colo that's pretty much the way I look at it. Power
determines space. I need 80,000W of power at the breaker, so I need
800sqftx15$ in facility A, and 320sqft@40$ in facility B.
I can fit my 8 racks into either the 320sqft or into the 800. If I'm
doing the 800, I'll probably spend a bit more up front and use 12 or 14
racks, to keep my density down. A bit more cost up front, but in the
grand scheme of things 4 or 6 extra racks ($6 to 10,000$) don't directly
hurt to much. (80kW worth of power usually means you've got well north of
$2M worth of hardware and software being stuffed into the space in my
experience..but maybe that's because we're an Oracle shop. ;)
Of course, I suppose for those customers still doing super-low-density
boxes (webhosting with lots and lots of desktops), I suppose that model
wouldn't work as well.
ramble.
.d
---
david raistrick http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
drais@icantclick.org http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
------=_Part_9231_16897248.1206251130257
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head><style type=3D'text/css'>body { font-family: 'Times New Roman';=
font-size: 12pt; color: #000000}</style></head><body>Basically, that is th=
e state of things. You're paying for power (which is also cooling) and band=
width/connectivity.<br><br>Globix is only letting us run one 30A 240V circu=
it per rack for "cooling reasons", however even with our 6850s we manage to=
populate a good portion of the rack. However, this means that for redundan=
cy we cannot put anyone's partner in crime in the same cabinet. Though Glob=
ix is the typical cold-in-front, hot-in-back setup they still seem to be un=
der-capacity when it comes to cooling... I think the end of the dot-com boo=
m put a dent in their Liebert budget. It amazes me places like Hurricane ca=
n't get enough space when there are once-decent shops like Globix with so m=
uch unused space.<br><br>Plan your power requirements carefully, and plan o=
n the ability to upgrade in the future. With the current trend of high-capa=
city blades, it seems that it would not be impossible to find 20-25kw per c=
abinet not long from now. Power distribution (if done right) is easy, cooli=
ng that density is the fun part. What's your cooling plan?<br><br>-Patrick<=
br><br>----- Original Message -----<br>From: "david raistrick" <drais@ic=
antclick.org><br>To: "Joe Greco" <jgreco@ns.sol.net><br>Cc: nanog@=
nanog.org<br>Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 9:26:37 PM (GMT-0800) America/L=
os_Angeles<br>Subject: Re: rack power question<br><br><br>On Sat, 22 Mar 20=
08, Joe Greco wrote:<br><br>> Charging substantially less for rack space=
, even offset by higher costs for<br>> power, would encourage a lot of c=
olo customers to "spread the load" around<br>> and not feel as obligated=
to maximize the use of space. That would in turn<br>> reduce the =
tendency for there to be excessive numbers of hot spots.<br><br>I wonder if=
we're to the point yet where we should just charge for power<br>and give t=
he space away "free"....<br><br>When I'm shopping for colo that's pretty mu=
ch the way I look at it. Power <br>determines space. I need 80=
,000W of power at the breaker, so I need <br>800sqftx15$ in facility A, and=
320sqft@40$ in facility B.<br><br>I can fit my 8 racks into either the 320=
sqft or into the 800. If I'm <br>doing the 800, I'll probably spend a=
bit more up front and use 12 or 14 <br>racks, to keep my density down. &nb=
sp;A bit more cost up front, but in the <br>grand scheme of things 4 or 6 e=
xtra racks ($6 to 10,000$) don't directly <br>hurt to much. (80kW worth of =
power usually means you've got well north of <br>$2M worth of hardware and =
software being stuffed into the space in my <br>experience..but maybe that'=
s because we're an Oracle shop. ;)<br><br><br><br>Of course, I suppose for =
those customers still doing super-low-density <br>boxes (webhosting with lo=
ts and lots of desktops), I suppose that model <br>wouldn't work as well.<b=
r><br><br>ramble.<br><br>.d<br><br>---<br>david raistrick &nb=
sp; http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html<br>drais@icantcli=
ck.org http://www.expita.com/nomi=
me.html<br><br></body></html>
------=_Part_9231_16897248.1206251130257--
