North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: High Density Multimode Runs BCP?
Hi, Thor We used it to create zone distribution points throughout our datacenter's which ran back to a central distribution point. This solution has been in place for almost 4 years. We have 10Gb SM ethernet links traversing the datacenter which link to the campus distribution center. The only downsides we have experienced are 1 - Lead time in getting the component parts 2 - easiliy damaged by careless contractors 3 - somewhat higher than normal back reflection on poor terminations Scott C. McGrath On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thor Lancelot Simon [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 3:17 PM > > To: Hannigan, Martin; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: High Density Multimode Runs BCP? > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 02:49:29PM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > When running say 24-pairs of multi-mode across a > > datacenter, I have > > > > > considered a few solutions, but am not sure what is > > > > common/best practice. > > > > > > > > I assume multiplexing up to 10Gb (possibly two links > > thereof) and then > > > > back down is cost-prohibitive? That's probably the > > "best" practice. > > > > > > I think he's talking physical plant. 200m should be fine. Consult > > > your equipment for power levels and support distance. > > > > Sure -- but given the cost of the new physical plant installation he's > > talking about, the fact that he seems to know the present maximum data > > rate for each physical link, and so forth, I think it does > > make sense to > > ask the question "is the right solution to simply be more economical > > with physical plant by multiplexing to a higher data rate"? > > > > I've never used fibre ribbon, as advocated by someone else in > > this thread, > > and that does sound like a very clever space- and possibly cost-saving > > solution to the puzzle. But even so, spending tens of thousands of > > dollars to carry 24 discrete physical links hundreds of > > meters across a > > Tens of thousands? 24 strand x 100' @ $5 = $500. Fusion splice > is $25 per splice per strand including termination. The 100m > patch chords are $100.00. It's cheaper to bundle and splice. > > How much does the mux cost? > > > > datacenter, each at what is, these days, not a particularly high data > > rate, may not be the best choice. There may well be some > > question about > > at which layer it makes sense to aggregate the links -- but to me, the > > question "is it really the best choice of design constraints to take > > aggregation/multiplexing off the table" is a very substantial one here > > and not profitably avoided. > > Fiber ribbon doesn't "fit" in any long distance (+7') distribution > system, rich or poor, that I'm aware of. Racks, cabinets, et. al. > are not very conducive to it. The only application I've seen was > IBM fiber channel. > > Datacenters are sometimes permanent facilities and it's better, > IMHO, to make things more permanent with cross connect than > aggregation. It enables you to make your cabinet cabling and > your termination area cabling almost permanent and maintenance > free - as well as giving you test,add, move, and drop. It's more > cable, but less equipment to maintain, support, and reduces > failure points. It enhances security as well. You can't open > the cabinet and just jack something in. You have to provision > behind the locked term area. > > I'd love to hear about a positive experience using ribbon cable > inside a datacenter. > > > > > > Thor > > >
|