North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Is there an electrician in the house?
>From the URL you sent: Note: The CCPDUs plug directly into the back of Matrix-UPS and should not be used with wall outlets. A grounding issue, maybe? You could just buy the Matrix battery back-ups to use with the CCPDUs, then plug the single cord from the Matrix into the provided socket. Redundant, but it should solve the problem - and shouldn't cost $5K/month, either. Phil Reese wrote: > > My company is finishing up the build out of a number of ccTLD DNS and > web server data centers in collocation space. We've run into the > following issue that I'd be interested in this group's opinion. > > Our data centers will have a number of Linux servers running on 110v > power, no problem there, just plug into the power strips provided. Then > we'll have a couple IBM S80 servers and two trays of disks that both > require 208v 30amp and an L6 plug. Now the max rated power of all the > devices is well within the two 208/30 circuits we've ordered. > > The difficulty is that the collocation company provides a single L6 > receptacle per circuit deployed. We'd planned on putting one S80 server > and one tray of disks on each of the two circuits. HOWEVER, each box > has its own cord and plug, i.e., two plugs. APC, and I'm sure others, > make essentially a 208/30amp outlet strip > (http://www.apc.com/products/accessories/wiring_ccpdu.cfm , cost between > $185-$200) that we'd planned to use. > > As we finish up the build out, the collocation company has informed us > that the device, such as the APC, are not allowed. Their only suggested > solution is to purchase as many circuits as we have plugs to connect. > Of course each additional 30 amp circuit will cost us just over > $1k/month! All totaled, we'd need an additional 5 circuits between our > east and west coast locations, or just over $5k/mo, $60k/yr, versus > $1000 one time fee to APC! > > By definition, collocation companies need to be paranoid about > everything. However, when I asked them what is the issue with the APC > device they just invoked 'this could cause an overload and potential > fire hazard' as their technical position on why this passive, UL listed, > device isn't allowed. > > Can anyone explain their side of the story, citing a bit more > technologically based explanation? > > Phil Reese -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Roland Dobbins <[email protected]> // 818.535.5024 voice
|