starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-13 13:53:31 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Rack Group and Site Rack Capacity #1074

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 16:28:33 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:28:33 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @ryanmerolle on GitHub (Jul 3, 2017).

Rack Capacity
Rack groups are often used to group racks within a site by room or some other grouping. It would be useful to associate a rack capacity to such a group. Similar to how you track a single's rack utilization by number of available rack units by subtracting space taken up by racked devices from the rack RU capacity, an optional field could be added to rack groups called something like "group rack capacity" where number of racks live could be tracked against deployed racks.

In the rack group and site list, it could then be displayed the total site and rack group utilization.

Integration with Floor Plans
If #114 was implemented, this could be implemented in a different way by reserving locations of the floor plan to set the limit of where Racks can be deployed based on dimensions.

Tracking Reserved Space
Similar to RU reservations, racks not yet installed could be reserved against the total capacity for a rack group or room.

Originally created by @ryanmerolle on GitHub (Jul 3, 2017). **Rack Capacity** Rack groups are often used to group racks within a site by room or some other grouping. It would be useful to associate a rack capacity to such a group. Similar to how you track a single's rack utilization by number of available rack units by subtracting space taken up by racked devices from the rack RU capacity, an optional field could be added to rack groups called something like "group rack capacity" where number of racks live could be tracked against deployed racks. In the rack group and site list, it could then be displayed the total site and rack group utilization. **Integration with Floor Plans** If #114 was implemented, this could be implemented in a different way by reserving locations of the floor plan to set the limit of where Racks can be deployed based on dimensions. **Tracking Reserved Space** Similar to RU reservations, racks not yet installed could be reserved against the total capacity for a rack group or room.
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 16:28:33 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:28:33 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@swerveshot commented on GitHub (Sep 6, 2017):

I don't know if this was @ryanmerolle's intention (if not, this will be a nice addition), but it would be great if RU reservations have the ability to count towards a rack utilization. For instance in case you can't add any more devices because of maximum weight capacity of a rack. You could add a reservation for the remaining RUs and reach 100% administrative utilization in the rack overview.

@swerveshot commented on GitHub (Sep 6, 2017): I don't know if this was @ryanmerolle's intention (if not, this will be a nice addition), but it would be great if RU reservations have the ability to count towards a rack utilization. For instance in case you can't add any more devices because of maximum weight capacity of a rack. You could add a reservation for the remaining RUs and reach 100% administrative utilization in the rack overview.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:28:34 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@nzurku commented on GitHub (Apr 20, 2018):

Have to agree with making rack reservations count against utilization. As a colocation provider, when someone rents a full rack, it makes more sense for us to make a 42 reservation than insert some sort of "42U fake device" since if we ever add a patch panel or a facility owned switch/device, we'd have to make a custom sized fake device to fill the rest.

I know for IP prefixes, there is a difference between setting something as a "Container" versus something else with how prefix utilization is handled. Perhaps racks should have a mode that can be put in that reservations count as utilization?

@nzurku commented on GitHub (Apr 20, 2018): Have to agree with making rack reservations count against utilization. As a colocation provider, when someone rents a full rack, it makes more sense for us to make a 42 reservation than insert some sort of "42U fake device" since if we ever add a patch panel or a facility owned switch/device, we'd have to make a custom sized fake device to fill the rest. I know for IP prefixes, there is a difference between setting something as a "Container" versus something else with how prefix utilization is handled. Perhaps racks should have a mode that can be put in that reservations count as utilization?
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:28:34 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@tb-killa commented on GitHub (May 6, 2019):

We wanted to ask again if this extension is planned in the near future ?
Currently we have to manually list or calculate the workloads due to major planning work.

@tb-killa commented on GitHub (May 6, 2019): We wanted to ask again if this extension is planned in the near future ? Currently we have to manually list or calculate the workloads due to major planning work.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:28:34 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 25, 2019):

I'm cleaning up old issues, and this FR is just too broad to be actionable. I'm not necessarily opposed to any of these points, but a new FR is needed for each of them (if there's still demand) to discuss the exact implementations.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 25, 2019): I'm cleaning up old issues, and this FR is just too broad to be actionable. I'm not necessarily opposed to any of these points, but a new FR is needed for each of them (if there's still demand) to discuss the exact implementations.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
beta
breaking change
complexity: high
complexity: low
complexity: medium
needs milestone
netbox
pending closure
plugin candidate
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 severity: high
severity: low
severity: medium
status: accepted
status: backlog
status: blocked
status: duplicate
status: needs owner
status: needs triage
status: revisions needed
status: under review
topic: GraphQL
topic: Internationalization
topic: OpenAPI
topic: UI/UX
topic: cabling
topic: event rules
topic: htmx navigation
topic: industrialization
topic: migrations
topic: plugins
topic: scripts
topic: templating
topic: testing
type: bug
type: deprecation
type: documentation
type: feature
type: housekeeping
type: translation
No Label
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
adam
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/netbox#1074
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?