Real world power consumption of a 7604-S or 7606-S

Tue Jun 28 05:37:20 UTC 2016

On 6/27/16 5:35 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> Yes, very much agreed, part of the reason why I'm looking to do the
> watts per linecard calculation is to illustrate how it's not healthy
> except in certain places. As an edge aggregation device in a very
> small city in a rural western US state where the electricity is 6
> cents/kWh, the 24x7 load from a 7604 that eats 950W with supervisors
> and a 6724SFP linecard is not so terrible. In this case the colo
> space for a 42U rack is sometimes literally free.
> 
> In a IX point/datacenter/colocation environment where rack and power
> costs real money, not so much.

2 x ( 4 x 10Gig)  linecards is really as fast as it goes no over-subscribed.

It's been rather a long time or possibly never since that platform was
cutting edge on a PPS/Watt basis.

Today at roughly double the power consumpution per slot you can have
between 16 and 36 hundred gig ports or 48 x 10gig at half the power
consumption.

> 
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Tom Hill <tom at ninjabadger.net>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 28/06/16 00:26, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>>> Example: 7604S chassis with dual 2700W DC power - chassis and
>>> fans use how much power? 2 x RSP720-3CXL at 310W each WS-X6704
>>> with DFC4 - ???W each
>> 
>> Way too much, is the simple answer.
>> 
>> I did have a 7604 (non-S) with the same PSUs, 1x SUP720-3BXL, 1x 
>> WS-X6724-SFP and 1x WS-X6708-3CXL was drawing near 2kW.
>> 
>> It's not healthy, please consider how much you'll spend in
>> electricity vs. something else. For example, the ASR9001 uses a 5th
>> of the power.
>> 
>> 
>> Cisco do also have a power calculator, too. It's conservative but
>> not overly so:
>> 
>> http://cpc.cloudapps.cisco.com/cpc/launch.jsp
>> 
>> -- Tom
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20160627/f70a3385/attachment.sig>