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

Adding Device depth tracking and visualisation #1337

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 16:31:34 +01:00 by adam · 3 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:31:34 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @AnythingOverIP on GitHub (Oct 19, 2017).

Issue type

[ X ] Feature request
[ ] Bug report
[ ] Documentation

Environment

  • Python version: 3.5.4
  • NetBox version: 2.2.1

Description

By tracking device length (depth) at the device type level, we could have the side view of the rack elevation.

It would help to visualize different server depths and help people at the planning level to not cram stuff in racks where it does not make sense, like putting a 20 inch long device like a switch or converter between 2 full length servers, where you could not put your hand in between to access plugs, etc...

It might be related to issue #450 , but in this case, I dont mind about the rack overall footprint but rather equipment footprint visualization (from the front rail toward's the back). Issue #450 could help to display both front and back if rail spacing is configurable (as this can be fixed or manually adjusted on a per-rack basis), but starting with the front rail could be a good beginning.

Originally created by @AnythingOverIP on GitHub (Oct 19, 2017). ### Issue type [ X ] Feature request <!-- Requesting the implementation of a new feature --> [ ] Bug report <!-- Reporting unexpected or erroneous behavior --> [ ] Documentation <!-- Proposing a modification to the documentation --> ### Environment * Python version: 3.5.4 * NetBox version: 2.2.1 ### Description By tracking device length (depth) at the device type level, we could have the side view of the rack elevation. It would help to visualize different server depths and help people at the planning level to not cram stuff in racks where it does not make sense, like putting a 20 inch long device like a switch or converter between 2 full length servers, where you could not put your hand in between to access plugs, etc... It might be related to issue #450 , but in this case, I dont mind about the rack overall footprint but rather equipment footprint visualization (from the front rail toward's the back). Issue #450 could help to display both front and back if rail spacing is configurable (as this can be fixed or manually adjusted on a per-rack basis), but starting with the front rail could be a good beginning.
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 16:31:34 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:31:34 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 19, 2017):

This would impose a large amount of new validation logic with very little gain. Tracking the exact depth of a device would require:

  1. Defining the rack's rail-to-rail length
  2. Checking that the device length is less than the rail-to-rail length for full-depth devices
  3. Checking that the device length plus the device length of each device in the opposite face is less than the rail-to-rail length

I think it's sufficient to simply stick to "half-depth" and "full-depth" classifications: The former will accommodate a device on the opposite face and the later will not. A large part of this classification has to do with airflow anyway, not just physical length.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 19, 2017): This would impose a large amount of new validation logic with very little gain. Tracking the exact depth of a device would require: 1. Defining the rack's rail-to-rail length 2. Checking that the device length is less than the rail-to-rail length for full-depth devices 3. Checking that the device length plus the device length of each device in the opposite face is less than the rail-to-rail length I think it's sufficient to simply stick to "half-depth" and "full-depth" classifications: The former will accommodate a device on the opposite face and the later will not. A large part of this classification has to do with airflow anyway, not just physical length.
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:31:34 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@AnythingOverIP commented on GitHub (Oct 19, 2017):

Items 1 & 2 are not necessary as it's only validating data, but it would be obvious if there was to have an overlap on the drawing.

Tracking rail to rail lengh is a good thing, especially in DC that has different rack generations, rack models or where rails spacing is dictated by the different equipement to be mounted in those racks.

In our world, we don't use much the back rail, and when we do, we are not putting anything on the other side of the rail except maybe a blank plate.

I was looking for basic representation, not a full validation of data, but I truly understand the point you are making. What I had in mind was something like this:
image

@AnythingOverIP commented on GitHub (Oct 19, 2017): Items 1 & 2 are not necessary as it's only validating data, but it would be obvious if there was to have an overlap on the drawing. Tracking rail to rail lengh is a good thing, especially in DC that has different rack generations, rack models or where rails spacing is dictated by the different equipement to be mounted in those racks. In our world, we don't use much the back rail, and when we do, we are not putting anything on the other side of the rail except maybe a blank plate. I was looking for basic representation, not a full validation of data, but I truly understand the point you are making. What I had in mind was something like this: ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/25624251/31788924-5818d97a-b4de-11e7-8e5d-46352bffe115.png)
adam commented 2025-12-29 16:31:35 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 26, 2017):

After giving this some thought, I don't see it adding any real value to NetBox right now. It's something we might reconsider in the future but there are many other features to knock out before then.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 26, 2017): After giving this some thought, I don't see it adding any real value to NetBox right now. It's something we might reconsider in the future but there are many other features to knock out before then.
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#1337
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?