On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 08:15:43AM PDT, Matt Lawrence spake thusly: > I am seeing a bit of a trend away from Top Of Rack switches to middle of > rack switches (although TOR is a much better acronym). I think it may be a > better way to go than what I have currenty set up as I build new racks. Not > only do I think the reduced cable density would be a huge improvement, I > also have a problem with lack of choices in cable length for some of the > cables I am using.
I've been using middle of rack switches and have never really understood the whole TOR thing. I don't have room for cable raceways which makes it hard to neatly organize wiring so minimizing the cable run length are important. I figure that by putting the switch in the middle I only need cables half as long and half approach the switch from above and half from below instead of all from below. It just results in a neater configuration. > The downsides? It's a change from tradition and I'm not sure about managing > the excess cable from connections going up the rack. Connections going up the rack? You mean inter-rack or core switch uplink cabling? I would rather half that one half a rack longer than all of my numerous server cables half a rack longer. I have found no downside to middle of rack switches (other than perhaps breaking from tradition), only upside. I don't even like the TOR acronym because for me TOR is The Onion Router. I prefer MOR (Middle Of Rack). I WANT MOR!!! :) -- Tracy Reed
pgpNEmHj9mQ1v.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Tech mailing list Tech@lists.lopsa.org https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
