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

Rack U numbering from top to bottom #147

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 15:35:20 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:35:20 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @yasa1987 on GitHub (Jul 5, 2016).

Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub.

Hello, in all our datacenters we are using Knurr racks and U numbering is from top to bottom : U01 is at top of rack and U41 is at rack bottom. In NetBox it's inverted.
Would it be possible to have an option to invert that to have U01 at top ? A 9U device starting at U02 will still end on U10 like now.

Originally created by @yasa1987 on GitHub (Jul 5, 2016). Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub. Hello, in all our datacenters we are using Knurr racks and U numbering is from top to bottom : U01 is at top of rack and U41 is at rack bottom. In NetBox it's inverted. Would it be possible to have an option to invert that to have U01 at top ? A 9U device starting at U02 will still end on U10 like now.
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 15:35:20 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:35:21 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 5, 2016):

This would require a new boolean field on the Rack model, indicating the direction of increment (keeping bottom-to-top as the default). Rack elevations should be simple to flip upside down. I think the most confusing aspect is the treatment of multi-U devices.

Currently, multi-U devices are "attached" to the lowest-numbered RU that they occupy, which is also the physically lowest RU. In a top-to-bottom numbering scheme, this would be the physically highest RU. It should be fine if we're very clear in the documentation to always use the lowest numbered RU, but might still lead to confusion.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 5, 2016): This would require a new boolean field on the Rack model, indicating the direction of increment (keeping bottom-to-top as the default). Rack elevations should be simple to flip upside down. I think the most confusing aspect is the treatment of multi-U devices. Currently, multi-U devices are "attached" to the lowest-numbered RU that they occupy, which is also the physically lowest RU. In a top-to-bottom numbering scheme, this would be the physically _highest_ RU. It should be fine if we're very clear in the documentation to always use the lowest _numbered_ RU, but might still lead to confusion.
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:35:21 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@yasa1987 commented on GitHub (Jul 6, 2016):

Displaying something like "U2 to U10" in "Position" field of device instead just the starting U should remove any kind of confusion. By the way it would allow to remove positions that are impossible to start at regarding device's height.

@yasa1987 commented on GitHub (Jul 6, 2016): Displaying something like "U2 to U10" in "Position" field of device instead just the starting U should remove any kind of confusion. By the way it would allow to remove positions that are impossible to start at regarding device's height.
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#147
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?