starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-12 05:20:31 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Allow multiple machines in 1U Chassis #63

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 15:31:05 +01:00 by adam · 11 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:31:05 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @irasnyd on GitHub (Jun 28, 2016).

Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub.

Fantastic application. It is by far the best that I've tried.

I have a significant number of 1U servers that actually house two independent computers within a single chassis. They are arranged side-by-side. Here is an example: http://www.supermicro.com/products/system/1U/6015/SYS-6015TW-T.cfm

The computers are completely independent: they have their own network, USB, IPMI, etc. The one thing they share is the power supply. This may be a complication to consider in the design of a "chassis" system which houses one or more computers.

Originally created by @irasnyd on GitHub (Jun 28, 2016). Originally assigned to: @jeremystretch on GitHub. Fantastic application. It is by far the best that I've tried. I have a significant number of 1U servers that actually house two independent computers within a single chassis. They are arranged side-by-side. Here is an example: http://www.supermicro.com/products/system/1U/6015/SYS-6015TW-T.cfm The computers are completely independent: they have their own network, USB, IPMI, etc. The one thing they share is the power supply. This may be a complication to consider in the design of a "chassis" system which houses one or more computers.
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 15:31:05 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:31:05 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@puck commented on GitHub (Jun 28, 2016):

It isn't just servers like this, for Open Compute Project racks, we often have 3 servers in a 2U shelf. With some systems 4.

This would also be useful for shelves where you might have multiple modems or other bits of equipment.

@puck commented on GitHub (Jun 28, 2016): It isn't just servers like this, for Open Compute Project racks, we often have 3 servers in a 2U shelf. With some systems 4. This would also be useful for shelves where you might have multiple modems or other bits of equipment.
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:31:07 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@loganbest commented on GitHub (Jun 29, 2016):

or any Cisco UCS chassis or SuperMicro FatTwin chassis

@loganbest commented on GitHub (Jun 29, 2016): or any Cisco UCS chassis or SuperMicro FatTwin chassis
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:31:08 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ronniefalcon commented on GitHub (Jun 29, 2016):

I too vote for this feature!

@ronniefalcon commented on GitHub (Jun 29, 2016): I too vote for this feature!
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:31:08 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@peelman commented on GitHub (Jul 1, 2016):

Dell FX2 goes on this list as well. You can get 8 FC430s in a single FX2 Chassis.

@peelman commented on GitHub (Jul 1, 2016): Dell FX2 goes on this list as well. You can get 8 FC430s in a single FX2 Chassis.
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:31:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ghost commented on GitHub (Jul 1, 2016):

Another example Dell M1000e can contain up to 32 quarter height blades in 10U.

@ghost commented on GitHub (Jul 1, 2016): Another example Dell M1000e can contain up to 32 quarter height blades in 10U.
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:31:09 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@peelman commented on GitHub (Jul 1, 2016):

Related to #51

@peelman commented on GitHub (Jul 1, 2016): Related to #51
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:31:10 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@peelman commented on GitHub (Jul 1, 2016):

Blade chassis in general might have to get fudged; it would probably be unnecessarily complicated to represent vertical blades...but I'd love to see somebody prove me wrong :)

@peelman commented on GitHub (Jul 1, 2016): Blade chassis in general might have to get fudged; it would probably be unnecessarily complicated to represent vertical blades...but I'd love to see somebody prove me wrong :)
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:31:10 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@puck commented on GitHub (Jul 7, 2016):

I was thinking about this on the way into work this morning. Perhaps the model of having "sites", "racks", "devices" and "modules" isn't quite right. Perhaps all sites, racks and devices should be "containers" which can have sub-containers.

This would people to create a structure like this (if they wanted to!):

country -> region -> town -> building -> floor -> room -> pod -> row -> rack -> chassis -> device -> component

Sites, racks, devices etc could be types of containers that can have the relevant metadata that is relevant to that kind of container and allow suitable filtering.

@puck commented on GitHub (Jul 7, 2016): I was thinking about this on the way into work this morning. Perhaps the model of having "sites", "racks", "devices" and "modules" isn't quite right. Perhaps all sites, racks and devices should be "containers" which can have sub-containers. This would people to create a structure like this (if they wanted to!): country -> region -> town -> building -> floor -> room -> pod -> row -> rack -> chassis -> device -> component Sites, racks, devices etc could be types of containers that can have the relevant metadata that is relevant to that kind of container and allow suitable filtering.
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:31:10 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@peelman commented on GitHub (Jul 7, 2016):

@puck see over here

@peelman commented on GitHub (Jul 7, 2016): @puck see [over here](https://github.com/digitalocean/netbox/issues/198#issuecomment-230858940)
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:31:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@puck commented on GitHub (Jul 7, 2016):

@peelman ah ha, sounds very familiar. ;) Same approach to solve two different limitations. ;)

@puck commented on GitHub (Jul 7, 2016): @peelman ah ha, sounds very familiar. ;) Same approach to solve two different limitations. ;)
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:31:15 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 7, 2016):

The scope of this issue is limited to the installation of subdevices into a rack-mounted chassis (e.g. blade servers). Marking this closed since #197 has been implemented.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 7, 2016): The scope of this issue is limited to the installation of subdevices into a rack-mounted chassis (e.g. blade servers). Marking this closed since #197 has been implemented.
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#63
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?