[NTLUG:Discuss] Re: When do you save with rackmounts?

[Minh Duong]

I agree with Kevin:  Space is probably the #1 savings
with rackmounts.  Space also indirectly affects
centralization.  For the most part rack mounts were
made for businesses and businesses with data centers
specifically.

Here's the way I see it.  Historically computing was
done with mainframes.  Then companies started moving
away from mainframes to workstations.   But companies
still needed to centralize the physical location of
servers.  Logistically it makes sense to centralize
the computing power.  Centralizing the data center
solves a number of management issues.

1.  Security.  Physically safeguarding all the servers
in a locked room is easier than computers all over the
place.

2.  Fire.  We all know that in the event of a fire,
computers will be hosed.  Either the fire will get it
or the sprinklers will UNLESS a halon system is used. 
Again installing 1 halon system is cheaper than many.

3.  Power.  Mission critical servers need power
conditioning and backup power.

4.  Environment.  All those CPUs will get hot.  Plus
humidity is detrimental to electronics.  I've heard
stories that in some companies in the South that the
President's office and the computer room were the only
two air conditioned areas of the plant.

4.  Personnel.

5.  Cables.  Kevin and others outlined the neatness
factor.

With all these considerations, companies do not
normally have an abundance of space.  They can't
expand or move the server room at their whim..  So as
more servers were added, I'm sure that they started
being stacked on desks til some bright geek built a
cabinet.  Then an industry standard was born.

Thank you for listening to me blab.  Join me next time
as I rant on the benefits of fudge.


Minh

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 02:19:54 -0600
From: kbrannen at gte.net
To: NTLUG Discussion List <discuss at ntlug.org>
Subject: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] When do you save with
rackmounts?
Message-ID: <3E6704AA.8050001 at gte.net>
In-Reply-To:
<E18px9y-0006jw-00 at gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net>
References:
<E18px9y-0006jw-00 at gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii;
format=flowed
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Reply-To: NTLUG Discussion List <discuss at ntlug.org>
Message: 5

Terry Hancock wrote:
> Hi,
> Following the "2U" system thread, it's obvious that
some of you use 
rackmount 
> systems.  I'm wondering what the tradeoffs are.
> 
> Obviously rackmount systems tend to be expensive for
the same level 
of 
> system, and they save space.  But unless you really
are in a business 
where 
> the physical computer cases actually take up a large
fraction of your 
floor 
> space, it's hard to believe that this alone is worth
the extra cost.

IMO, space is the #1 reason to do it; you can put more
computing power 
per 
*cubic* foot that way.  And yes, a business is about
the only "entity" 
to have 
the need.

Another reason might be uniformity of machine, but
kinda takes you back 
to space.

Racks can also help you to be very tidy in your
wiring, though I've 
seen some 
pictures where people didn't bother. :-)

I've also seen a person do it for noise issues.  They
got an enclosed 
rack 
cabinet (on the cheap somewhere) and by putting their
machine(s) in it, 
with 
some sound insulation foam, and claimed to make their
home office much 
quieter.

And you shouldn't discount the "coolness" factor. 
Sorta labels you as 
"uber-geek" to have one of those in your house. ;-)

Generally speaking, rack mounted machines tend to be
headless, or at 
least 
connected to bigger KVM switches so you only have 1 
keyboard/mouse/moniter for 
the entire rack (or even 3 or 4 racks).

HTH,
Kevin



__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/