"They all suck!" Re: UPS failure modes (was: fire at NAC)

Alex Rubenstein alex at nac.net
Thu May 29 23:59:18 UTC 2003

Similar to: http://www.baytech.net/cgi-private/product?catagory=F-RPC+SERIES

and isn't Liebert.

On Thu, 29 May 2003, Temkin, David wrote:

> Here you go:
> http://www.liebert.com/dynamic/displayproduct.asp?ID=1042&cycles=60Hz
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Temkin, David
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 7:49 PM
> To: 'E.B. Dreger'; nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: RE: "They all suck!" Re: UPS failure modes (was: fire at NAC)
> Liebert makes one, actually.   The model # escapes me, but we considered
> using it for equipment that's single powered.  (We have uber power
> redundancy..)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: E.B. Dreger [mailto:eddy+public+spam at noc.everquick.net]
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 7:38 PM
> To: nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: Re: "They all suck!" Re: UPS failure modes (was: fire at NAC)
> SD> Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 16:53:43 -0400 (EDT)
> SD> From: Sean Donelan
> SD> Yep, tieing together "redundant" systems with parelleling gears
> SD> turns two independent systems into one "co-dependent" system.  In a
> SD> failure situation, you want to compartmentalize the failure.
> SD> Loosing half your systems may be better than loosing all your
> SD> systems.
> Too bad a substantial amount of equipment doesn't allow for redundant
> plugins.  The ability to plug { servers | routers | whatever } into two
> totally separate power feeds is nice.
> Anyone for building a rackmount transfer switch for two inputs? Assuming it
> didn't fail (!) -- would the economies of scale work for or against it
> compared to big transfer switches?  Between dealing with _much_ smaller
> current levels and the opportunity for mass production, what are the chances
> of something like this working?
> Eddy
> --
> Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting,
> e-commerce, hosting, and network building
> Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
> Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
> From: A Trap <blacklist at brics.com>
> To: blacklist at brics.com
> Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.
> These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send
> mail to <blacklist at brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
> IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is
> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
> sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its
> attachments.  Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of
> this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly
> prohibited.  Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or
> should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or
> sell any security or other financial instrument.  Neither the sender, his or
> her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as
> to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein
> or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.

-- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex at nac.net, latency, Al Reuben --
--    Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net   --

More information about the NANOG mailing list