change 0.5U to be "half-width" instead of "half-height" #10530

New Issue

adam · 2025-12-29T21:32:39+01:00

adam commented

2025-12-29 21:32:39 +01:00

Originally created by @ghost on GitHub (Dec 2, 2024).

NetBox version

v4.1.7

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Triage priority

N/A

Proposed functionality

Currently, half rack unit devices are split 50/50 vertically when viewing the devices inside of a rack elevation. Pretty much all "half" rack unit devices are half-width, not half-height.

It would be nice if the 50/50 split for a rack unit was half-width split vertically rather than half-height split horizontally.

Use case

Let's look at a number of examples.
Half-width switches are increasingly popular options for SMB's and carriers.

Dell s4112f

HPE SN2100M

Adva FSP series

you get the idea.

Currently when you model these you have 2 options. Either configure them as 0.5U, or set up the parent/child method with a bracket as the parent that has 2 device bays, and setting each switch as a child.

Both options are not ideal.

Method 1: 0.5U, when modeling switches this way and using front and rear images for the device types, you end up with a strange aspect ratio for the images.

Method 2: parent/child
When modeling these devices as a child relationship installed into device bays of a parent bracket, you lose the ability to see the front and rear images on the rack elevations. (see the UCS chassis in the screenshot above). Instead of being able to see pictures, you're left with only the device role color.

By modeling half rack unit's as half width, you would be able to use method 1, and still be able to see images with the proper aspect ratio. Example:

Database changes

none that im aware of.

External dependencies

none.

Originally created by @ghost on GitHub (Dec 2, 2024). ### NetBox version v4.1.7 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Triage priority N/A ### Proposed functionality Currently, half rack unit devices are split 50/50 vertically when viewing the devices inside of a rack elevation. Pretty much all "half" rack unit devices are half-width, not half-height. It would be nice if the 50/50 split for a rack unit was half-width split vertically rather than half-height split horizontally. ### Use case Let's look at a number of examples. Half-width switches are increasingly popular options for SMB's and carriers. Dell s4112f ![image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1ca18b5b-7a4e-4a1e-8203-0beb1b3ee3ab) HPE SN2100M ![image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/8add3323-11cd-49c3-82eb-048cea0eed7e) Adva FSP series ![image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/26005d46-1548-452e-89d8-c5ea4f895044) you get the idea. Currently when you model these you have 2 options. Either configure them as 0.5U, or set up the parent/child method with a bracket as the parent that has 2 device bays, and setting each switch as a child. Both options are not ideal. Method 1: 0.5U, when modeling switches this way and using front and rear images for the device types, you end up with a strange aspect ratio for the images. ![image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b7aab9bb-7600-4735-83ad-cac0d665bb64) ![image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7b642e07-d8f9-4cfb-a52c-90e6bbbf2978) Method 2: parent/child When modeling these devices as a child relationship installed into device bays of a parent bracket, you lose the ability to see the front and rear images on the rack elevations. (see the UCS chassis in the screenshot above). Instead of being able to see pictures, you're left with only the device role color. By modeling half rack unit's as half width, you would be able to use method 1, and still be able to see images with the proper aspect ratio. Example: ![image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e7dc16ce-ea17-49ee-9346-9210fa058a19) ### Database changes none that im aware of. ### External dependencies none.

adam added the type: feature label 2025-12-29 21:32:39 +01:00

adam closed this issue

2025-12-29 21:32:40 +01:00

adam commented

2025-12-29 21:32:43 +01:00

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 2, 2024):

U (unit) is a measure of vertical height; you are talking about width. NetBox allows for half-U increments to accommodate e.g. 1.5U devices. This will not be changed.

Please see our FAQ addressing how to model half-width devices.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Dec 2, 2024): U (unit) is a measure of vertical height; you are talking about width. NetBox allows for half-U increments to accommodate e.g. 1.5U devices. This will not be changed. Please see [our FAQ](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/wiki/Frequently-Asked-Questions#how-can-i-model-half-width-devices) addressing how to model half-width devices.

Sign in to join this conversation.

Branches Tags

main

update-changelog-comments-docs

feature-removal-issue-type

20911-dropdown

20239-plugin-menu-classes-mutable-state

21097-graphql-id-lookups

feature

fix_module_substitution

20923-dcim-templates

20044-elevation-stuck-lightmode

feature-ip-prefix-link

v4.5-beta1-release

20068-import-moduletype-attrs

20766-fix-german-translation-code-literals

20378-del-script

7604-filter-modifiers-v3

circuit-swap

12318-case-insensitive-uniqueness

20637-improve-device-q-filter

20660-script-load

19724-graphql

20614-update-ruff

14884-script

02496-max-page

19720-macaddress-interface-generic-relation

19408-circuit-terminations-export-templates

20203-openapi-check

fix-19669-api-image-download

7604-filter-modifiers

19275-fixes-interface-bulk-edit

fix-17794-get_field_value_return_list

11507-show-aggregate-and-rir-on-api

9583-add_column_specific_search_field_to_tables

1 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/netbox#10530