|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: cooling door
I referenced LAN rooms as an expedient and to highlight an irony. The point is, smaller, less-concentrated, distributed enclosures suffice nicely for many purposes, similar to how Google's distributed containers and Sun Micro's Data Centers in a box do. And while LAN rooms that have been vacated, as a result of using collapsed fiber, might fit these needs, since they would have been already powered and conditioned in many cases, those could actually be reclaimed by tenants and landlords as usable floor space in many cases. >I suppose the maintenance industry would love the surge in extra >contracts to keep all the gear running.... Your supposition is open to wide interpretation. I'll take it to mean that you think "more" gear, not less, will require maintenance. Maybe in some cases, but in the vast majority not. Consider a multi-story commercial building that is entirely devoid of UTP-based switches, but instead is supported over fiber to a colo or managed service provider location. Why would this building require L2/3 aggregation switches and routers, simply to get in and out, if it hasn't any access switches inside? It wouldn't require any routers, is my point. This reduces the number of boxes reqired by a factor of two or more, since I no longer require routers onsite, and I no longer require their mates in the upstream or colos. I wouldn't require a classical in-building L3 hierarchy employing high-end routers at the distribution and core levels at all, or I'd require a lot fewer of them. Extending this rationale further, the level of logistics and LAN element administration required to keep on-prem applications humming is also reduced, ir not eliminated, and/or could easily be sourced more efficiently elsewhere. I.e., from a CLI or Web browser the LAN admin could be doing her thing from Mumbai (and in some cases this is already being done) or from home. So there's actually "less" gear to manage, not more. I realize this isn't a one-size-fits all model, and I didn't intend to make it appear that it was. But for the vast majority of enterprise buildings with tenants occupying large contiguous areas, I think it makes a great deal of sense, or at least would be worth evaluating to determine if it does. Frank A. Coluccio DTI Consulting Inc. 212-587-8150 Office 347-526-6788 Mobile On Sat Mar 29 18:30 , david raistrick sent: >On Sat, 29 Mar 2008, Frank Coluccio wrote: > >> In fact, those same servers, and a host of other storage and network >> elements, can be returned to the LAN rooms and closets of most >> commercial buildings from whence they originally came prior to the > >How does that work? So now we buy a whole bunch of tiny gensets, and a >whole bunch of baby UPSen and smaller cooling units to support little >datacenters? Not to mention diverse paths to each point.. > >Didn't we (the customers) try that already and realize that it's rather >unmanagable? > > >I suppose the maintenance industry would love the surge in extra >contracts to keep all the gear running.... > > >I suppose the maintenance industry would love the surge in extra >contracts to keep all the gear running.... >..david > > >--- >david raistrick http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html >[email protected] http://www.expita.com/nomime.html >
|