starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-11 21:10:29 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

PDU integrated into the Power Feeds #11944

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:51:46 +01:00 by adam · 0 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:51:46 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @icefire-ken on GitHub (Dec 21, 2025).

NetBox version

v4.4.8

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

First, here is my understanding of existing Power Panels and Power Feeds.
The Power Panel is the electrical power rack in the computer room. It's called Rack 00.
Rack 01~10 are used to install network devices or server devices.
A Power Feed is provided from Rack 00 to each of the other racks.

Image

Each Power Feed is then associated with a Rack, allowing you to view Power Utilization on the Rack or Power Feed. The unit is VA, found on the Power Feeds page.
But here's the problem.
A Power Feed can only be associated with one Power Port of device.
Shouldn't a Power Feed provide power to all the devices in a rack?
Did I misunderstand?
Like this：

Image

Devices A, B, C, and D are all installed in rack 01.
This allows you to observe changes in Power Utilization when adding or removing device.
So, should we upgrade the Power Feeds? Integrate PDU functionality.
In reality, a PDU is supposed to provide multiple Power Outlets through a single Power Feed, allowing different devices to connect to the Power Port.

I saw a video on YouTube：
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mweHqHTTUIA

Image

Under the current conditions, he created a PDU Device with the Device Type PDU.
The PDU device type creates two components: one Power Port and multiple Power Outlets.
The Power Port is used to connect the Power Feed.
Power Outlets are used to connect the Power Port of devices.
Like this：

Image

This method affects the original design intent of Power Utilization.
In this way, the Power Utilization rate is no longer affected by the ALLOCATED DRAW of the Device, but is directly determined by the ALLOCATED DRAW of the PDU.
Therefore, I don't think this is a good solution.

Use case

Design for integrating PDU for Power Feed,
Allow the Power Feed to provide multiple Power Outlets,
These outlets offer a choice of types, such as IEC 60320 - C13, and of course, other types as well.
This provides two advantages.

  1. The Power Feed integrates a PDU, allowing multiple Power Port of devices to connect the same Power Feed.
  2. It still retains the characteristic that Power Utilization varies with connected Power Port of devices.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @icefire-ken on GitHub (Dec 21, 2025). ### NetBox version v4.4.8 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality First, here is my understanding of existing Power Panels and Power Feeds. The Power Panel is the electrical power rack in the computer room. It's called Rack 00. Rack 01~10 are used to install network devices or server devices. A Power Feed is provided from Rack 00 to each of the other racks. <img width="485" height="266" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f2d9f648-a94c-4b58-b147-1b405f738817" /> Each Power Feed is then associated with a Rack, allowing you to view Power Utilization on the Rack or Power Feed. The unit is VA, found on the Power Feeds page. But here's the problem. A Power Feed can only be associated with one Power Port of device. Shouldn't a Power Feed provide power to all the devices in a rack? Did I misunderstand? Like this： <img width="729" height="280" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5a155880-4f0f-42e9-b9c6-5f8efbd17ddc" /> Devices A, B, C, and D are all installed in rack 01. This allows you to observe changes in Power Utilization when adding or removing device. So, should we upgrade the Power Feeds? Integrate PDU functionality. In reality, a PDU is supposed to provide multiple Power Outlets through a single Power Feed, allowing different devices to connect to the Power Port. I saw a video on YouTube： https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mweHqHTTUIA <img width="1926" height="917" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/8a0de7cc-fa6a-4aa5-8f4e-232d3fac90cd" /> Under the current conditions, he created a PDU Device with the Device Type PDU. The PDU device type creates two components: one Power Port and multiple Power Outlets. The Power Port is used to connect the Power Feed. Power Outlets are used to connect the Power Port of devices. Like this： <img width="741" height="254" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f1740983-8cc9-4f76-857a-021eb0d09687" /> This method affects the original design intent of Power Utilization. In this way, the Power Utilization rate is no longer affected by the ALLOCATED DRAW of the Device, but is directly determined by the ALLOCATED DRAW of the PDU. Therefore, I don't think this is a good solution. ### Use case Design for integrating PDU for Power Feed, Allow the Power Feed to provide multiple Power Outlets, These outlets offer a choice of types, such as IEC 60320 - C13, and of course, other types as well. This provides two advantages. 1. The Power Feed integrates a PDU, allowing multiple Power Port of devices to connect the same Power Feed. 2. It still retains the characteristic that Power Utilization varies with connected Power Port of devices. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:51:46 +01:00
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#11944
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?