|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:21:37 -0700 From: "Michael K. Smith" <mksmith@adhost.com> To: Alex Rubenstein <alex@corp.nac.net>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> In-Reply-To: <FF5E2BD4C989EB41B60A6DC6CA8D295222426710E3@EXCHMBX.hq.nac.net> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On 11/4/09 11:44 AM, "Alex Rubenstein" <alex@corp.nac.net> wrote: >>> Regardless of generator sizing issues or disparities, if the ATS fails, >>> then no amount of grid or generator power will keep the cabinets juiced up. > > That is patently false. > At it's root it's true - if an ATS fails the power between the source and destination will be interrupted. > Assume N+1 UPS, with each UPS module having its own ATS fed from a utility and > emergency bus. Then you can even individually maintain each UPS module and > ATS. Bonus and score. > > And if it's a really good place, you have two of the above (2(n+1)) and each > of your power cords goes to one each. > Which doesn't address the failure of one piece of equipment. Of course, if you're dual chorded from your server through fully redundant switch gear to multiple, diverse vaults then a single ATS failure shouldn't affect you. Regards, Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |