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

PowerFeed associated to a Datacenter and power consumption report #2850

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:22:45 +01:00 by adam · 4 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:45 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @Solvik on GitHub (Sep 4, 2019).

Environment

  • Python version: 2.6.2
  • NetBox version: 3.6.8

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Create Power Feed for a given datacenter, let the Rack field empty
  2. Create rack within the datacenter
  3. Create device and power ports, report fake consumption

Datacenter:
Capture d’écran 2019-09-04 à 15 14 22

Power Feed:
Capture d’écran 2019-09-04 à 15 14 31

Server PSU
Capture d’écran 2019-09-04 à 15 17 06

Expected Behavior

By assigning Power Feed to the datacenter, I supposed the power consumption of a rack would still be reported in the column "Power" of the rack list.

Observed Behavior

In the list of the dacenter's racks, we should see the power consumption of the rack.
But because the Power Feed isn't assigned to the Rack but to the whole datacenter, the power consumption reports 0 (see screenshot)

I understand the documentation isn't very complete for this part of the project (I'll try to make a PR about it), but from what I understand, it's not necessary to create as much Power Feed as there's racks

Originally created by @Solvik on GitHub (Sep 4, 2019). <!-- NOTE: This form is only for reproducible bugs. If you need assistance with NetBox installation, or if you have a general question, DO NOT open an issue. Instead, post to our mailing list: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/netbox-discuss Please describe the environment in which you are running NetBox. Be sure that you are running an unmodified instance of the latest stable release before submitting a bug report. --> ### Environment * Python version: 2.6.2 * NetBox version: 3.6.8 <!-- Describe in detail the exact steps that someone else can take to reproduce this bug using the current stable release of NetBox (or the current beta release where applicable). Begin with the creation of any necessary database objects and call out every operation being performed explicitly. If reporting a bug in the REST API, be sure to reconstruct the raw HTTP request(s) being made: Don't rely on a wrapper like pynetbox. --> ### Steps to Reproduce 1. Create Power Feed for a given datacenter, let the Rack field empty 2. Create rack within the datacenter 3. Create device and power ports, report fake consumption Datacenter: <img width="910" alt="Capture d’écran 2019-09-04 à 15 14 22" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/201761/64258089-de7dbd00-cf26-11e9-9bfa-f6532afdf6fc.png"> Power Feed: <img width="911" alt="Capture d’écran 2019-09-04 à 15 14 31" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/201761/64258091-de7dbd00-cf26-11e9-8bf4-cde586ed3849.png"> Server PSU <img width="783" alt="Capture d’écran 2019-09-04 à 15 17 06" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/201761/64258194-184ec380-cf27-11e9-8400-bd2da8530663.png"> <!-- What did you expect to happen? --> ### Expected Behavior By assigning Power Feed to the datacenter, I supposed the power consumption of a rack would still be reported in the column "Power" of the rack list. <!-- What happened instead? --> ### Observed Behavior In the list of the dacenter's racks, we should see the power consumption of the rack. But because the Power Feed isn't assigned to the Rack but to the whole datacenter, the power consumption reports 0 (see screenshot) I understand the documentation isn't very complete for this part of the project (I'll try to make a PR about it), but from what I understand, it's not necessary to create as much Power Feed as there's racks
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:22:46 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:46 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 4, 2019):

Please revise your issue to specify exactly what you're doing, including the precise numbers you're getting and how they differ from what you were expecting.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Sep 4, 2019): Please revise your issue to specify exactly what you're doing, including the precise numbers you're getting and how they differ from what you were expecting.
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:47 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@Solvik commented on GitHub (Sep 4, 2019):

I've updated the issue a bit, it made me understand the complete workflow, I think

If I assign a Power Feed to a Site (and leave the Rack field empty) netbox code won't be able to guess the power utilization for a given rack.

Can you confirm this ?

So the correct usage is to create a Power Feed per Rack.
In case of a dual Power Feed of 30A rack with 208V, it gives us a 2x 6.2 kVA which makes a 2x 6.2kW for a power factor of 1.
Netbox will then report the actual consumption (if reported on the Device's Power Ports).

In the case of a room with 45kW but 10x 6kW racks, how can you monitor that the rack's total consumption doesn't exceed the room's electric capacity ?
Is that a missing feature of Power Panel ?

@Solvik commented on GitHub (Sep 4, 2019): I've updated the issue a bit, it made me understand the complete workflow, I think If I assign a `Power Feed` to a `Site` (and leave the `Rack` field empty) netbox code won't be able to guess the power utilization for a given rack. **Can you confirm this ?** So the correct usage is to create a `Power Feed` per `Rack`. In case of a dual Power Feed of 30A rack with 208V, it gives us a 2x 6.2 kVA which makes a 2x 6.2kW for a power factor of 1. Netbox will then report the actual consumption (if reported on the Device's `Power Ports`). In the case of a room with 45kW but 10x 6kW racks, how can you monitor that the rack's total consumption doesn't exceed the room's electric capacity ? Is that a missing feature of `Power Panel` ?
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:47 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@wols commented on GitHub (Oct 8, 2019):

Do you have devices via PDU on the feeds?

NetBox version: 2.6.5
See Rack NTPpool:

power-racks

Three feeds for this Rack:

power-feeds

power-fuse

A PDU behind EVU Fuse1:

power-pdu-in

Eight devices (with her secundary power unit Power 2):

power-pdu-out

I'll be creating a howto soon: https://github.com/wols/awesome-netbox

@wols commented on GitHub (Oct 8, 2019): Do you have devices via PDU on the feeds? NetBox version: 2.6.5 See Rack NTPpool: ![power-racks](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/764167/66391476-84f92a00-e9cd-11e9-84f3-0e1d87aeb886.png) Three feeds for this Rack: ![power-feeds](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/764167/66391485-89bdde00-e9cd-11e9-83a7-38670d51539d.png) ![power-fuse](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/764167/66391503-9cd0ae00-e9cd-11e9-95f8-393df22cf191.png) A PDU behind EVU Fuse1: ![power-pdu-in](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/764167/66391511-a22df880-e9cd-11e9-9fae-783ea64004db.png) Eight devices (with her secundary power unit Power 2): ![power-pdu-out](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/764167/66391516-a528e900-e9cd-11e9-861d-6a5797185334.png) I'll be creating a howto soon: https://github.com/wols/awesome-netbox
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:48 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 9, 2019):

I think there's some confusion about how power is modeled in NetBox. In order to convey power utilization for a rack, it must have at least one power feed associated with it. No assumptions are made about how power is delivered to a rack beyond that. A rack with no power feeds assigned to it will always show 0% utilization.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Oct 9, 2019): I think there's some confusion about how power is modeled in NetBox. In order to convey power utilization for a rack, it _must_ have at least one power feed associated with it. No assumptions are made about how power is delivered to a rack beyond that. A rack with no power feeds assigned to it will always show 0% utilization.
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#2850
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?