[130051] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Routers in Data Centers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Rubenstein)
Sun Sep 26 21:25:16 2010
From: Alex Rubenstein <alex@corp.nac.net>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 21:24:54 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20100926174755.GB18648@hiwaay.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>=20
> I'm not saying the problems are the same, but I am saying that a
> backplane making cooling "hard" is not a good excuse, especially when
> the small empty chassis costs $10K+.
And, not to mention that some vendors do it sometimes.
"The 9-slot Cisco Catalyst 6509 Enhanced Vertical Switch (6509-V-E) provide=
s [stuff]. It also provides front-to-back airflow that is optimized for hot=
and cold aisle designs in colocated data center and service provider deplo=
yments and is compliant with Network Equipment Building Standards (NEBS) de=
ployments."
It only took 298 years from the inception of the 6509 to get a front-to-bac=
k version. If you can do it with that oversized thing, it certainly can be =
done on a 7200, XMR, juniper whatever, or whatever else you fancy.
There is no good excuse. The datacenter of today (and yesterday) really nee=
ds front to back cooling; the datacenter of tomorrow requires and demands i=
t.
If vendors cared, they'd do it. Problem is, there is a disconnect between d=
atacenter designer, datacenter builder, datacenter operator, IT operator, a=
nd IT manufacturer. No one is smart enough, yet, to say, "if you want to pu=
t that hunk of crap in my datacenter, it needs to suck in the front and put=
out in the back, otherwise my PUE will be 1.3 instead of 1.2 and you will =
be to blame for my oversized utility bills."
Perhaps when a bean-counter paying the power bill sees the difference, it w=
ill matter. I dunno.
I'll crawl back under my rock now.
