Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support for half-width device type v2 #15945

Open
vinceberg opened this issue May 3, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

Support for half-width device type v2 #15945

vinceberg opened this issue May 3, 2024 · 5 comments
Labels
pending closure Requires immediate attention to avoid being closed for inactivity status: revisions needed This issue requires additional information to be actionable type: feature Introduction of new functionality to the application

Comments

@vinceberg
Copy link

NetBox version

v3.7.3

Feature type

Data model extension

Proposed functionality

Under Device Type, add a check box "Is Half-width".
Under Device\Location, change "Position" to include "Left" and "Right" in the drop down when the device type is half-width.

Use case

The currently supported approach to modeling half-width devices does not support modular chassis.
We do have HP EL8000 Chassis that have 8 half U bays(https://www.hpe.com/psnow/doc/a00067727enw). If I create a parent device as a place holder for the right and left chassis, I cannot create the chassis as a parent and therefore cannot install the blade server childs.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

@vinceberg vinceberg added status: needs triage This issue is awaiting triage by a maintainer type: feature Introduction of new functionality to the application labels May 3, 2024
@jeffgdotorg
Copy link
Collaborator

This FR will need significant expansion if we're to accept it. The flexibility required to support this kind of device simply isn't supported at the moment, so many aspects of the NetBox model for racks and devices would need updating.

As a starting point, we need a reasonably detailed outline of a proposal for fundamentally overhauling our current approach to modeling the racking of devices, so that it accommodates things that behave like half-width blade servers. Your use case would also need to articulate additional examples of device types that behave this way, so that the team knows they're not sinking a huge amount of work into enabling a niche use case.

@jeffgdotorg jeffgdotorg removed their assignment May 6, 2024
@jeffgdotorg jeffgdotorg added status: revisions needed This issue requires additional information to be actionable and removed status: needs triage This issue is awaiting triage by a maintainer labels May 6, 2024
@ITJamie
Copy link
Contributor

ITJamie commented May 6, 2024

some examples of half-width devices ive seen:

opengear om1200's - https://resources.opengear.com/om/datasheets/om1200/ (there's quite a few opengear devices based on this chassis)
ecler gear https://www.ecler.com/products/1uhrmkit/ ( a lot of audio industry devices are half-width )
qnap m2106pr-2s2t https://www.qnap.com/en/product/qsw-m2106pr-2s2t

its not uncommon to see the above devices mounted with just one "ear" depending on the side of the rack it's mounted to

@DrDoc777
Copy link

We also have half-width devices in racks (e.g. RME ADI-4 DD & MOXA UPort 1610-8 ) and still haven't found a no solution how to get these documented on same RU in netbox.
There's definitely a use-case for half-width devices.
If it's possible to define "front-side" & "rear-side" as installation in a rack, then "left-side" & "right-side" should be possible too. Tricky part might be the appropriate visualization in the rack-view.

@jeremystretch
Copy link
Member

@vinceberg as @jeffgdotorg points out above, this FR requires a much more detailed technical proposal to move forward. Please spend some time getting familiar with how NetBox currently models racked devices, consider how this model might be expanded to serve your use case, and update your proposal above accordingly. If you're not yet ready to submit a concrete feature request, please consider starting a discussion to exchange ideas with other users instead.

Copy link

This is a reminder that additional information is needed in order to further triage this issue. If the requested details are not provided, the issue will soon be closed automatically.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the pending closure Requires immediate attention to avoid being closed for inactivity label May 25, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
pending closure Requires immediate attention to avoid being closed for inactivity status: revisions needed This issue requires additional information to be actionable type: feature Introduction of new functionality to the application
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants