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

2-Post Rack: Everything should consume front / rear #8512

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 20:37:38 +01:00 by adam · 8 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:37:38 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @bradley-rose on GitHub (Aug 25, 2023).

NetBox version

v3.5.7

Feature type

Change to existing functionality

Proposed functionality

My organization has a number of 2-post racks. These is an option to include in NetBox, but I expected the 2-post designation to immediately consume a front and rear rack unit for every device that's installed in it because they're just 2 posts — there's no concept of depth in a 2-post rack.

Currently, only devices listed as "full-depth" in the device-type classification consume a front and rear slot. I would expect this behaviour on a 4-post rack, but not a 2.

Use case

2-post racks have no concept of depth, only height units.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @bradley-rose on GitHub (Aug 25, 2023). ### NetBox version v3.5.7 ### Feature type Change to existing functionality ### Proposed functionality My organization has a number of 2-post racks. These is an option to include in NetBox, but I expected the 2-post designation to immediately consume a front *and* rear rack unit for every device that's installed in it because they're just 2 posts — there's no concept of depth in a 2-post rack. Currently, only devices listed as "full-depth" in the device-type classification consume a front and rear slot. I would expect this behaviour on a 4-post rack, but not a 2. ### Use case 2-post racks have no concept of depth, only height units. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam added the type: featurepending closure labels 2025-12-29 20:37:38 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 20:37:38 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:37:38 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pv2b commented on GitHub (Aug 27, 2023):

Would it not make more sense to not display a rear view at all for 2-post racks? Or perhaps, if you're referring to the "elevations" view, to always display the front of the rack irrespective of the setting? Is it even possible to install something on the rear face of a 2-post rack? In that case that might be a bug.

As for the concept of a 2-post rack not having depth, I disagree. It's common to find 2-posts racks mounted fairly close to a wall, so that larger devices such as servers or 48-port PoE switches cannot fit in those. So, specifying a maximum depth for a 2-post rack to clarify that larger devices will not fit into the rack is a useful feature.

@pv2b commented on GitHub (Aug 27, 2023): Would it not make more sense to not display a rear view at all for 2-post racks? Or perhaps, if you're referring to the "elevations" view, to always display the front of the rack irrespective of the setting? Is it even possible to install something on the rear face of a 2-post rack? In that case that might be a bug. As for the concept of a 2-post rack not having depth, I disagree. It's common to find 2-posts racks mounted fairly close to a wall, so that larger devices such as servers or 48-port PoE switches cannot fit in those. So, specifying a maximum depth for a 2-post rack to clarify that larger devices will not fit into the rack is a useful feature.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:37:39 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bradley-rose commented on GitHub (Aug 27, 2023):

Agree, removing the rear view entirely would also satisfy. As for depth, I haven't seen those types of installations before, but I'm sure they exist so you you have a point.

@bradley-rose commented on GitHub (Aug 27, 2023): Agree, removing the rear view entirely would also satisfy. As for depth, I haven't seen those types of installations before, but I'm sure they exist so you you have a point.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:37:39 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@sleepinggenius2 commented on GitHub (Aug 28, 2023):

I agree that it would be really nice to have devices occupy both the front and rear of a 2-post rack. As those are most of what we have installed, we've ended up having to mark most of our devices as full-depth in order to get around this issue, which has ended up causing some issues in other places.

As for eliminating the rear view entirely, that would be a problem for us, as we have a number of places where equipment is mounted such that the "front" of the device is facing the "rear" of the rack. We've done this to simplify cabling in some scenarios, as well as being able to handle equipment with the incorrect airflow for our hot and cold aisles. It would be confusing to a technician to see the wrong device face showing in the wrong rack elevation.

@sleepinggenius2 commented on GitHub (Aug 28, 2023): I agree that it would be really nice to have devices occupy both the front and rear of a 2-post rack. As those are most of what we have installed, we've ended up having to mark most of our devices as full-depth in order to get around this issue, which has ended up causing some issues in other places. As for eliminating the rear view entirely, that would be a problem for us, as we have a number of places where equipment is mounted such that the "front" of the device is facing the "rear" of the rack. We've done this to simplify cabling in some scenarios, as well as being able to handle equipment with the incorrect airflow for our hot and cold aisles. It would be confusing to a technician to see the wrong device face showing in the wrong rack elevation.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:37:39 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@eronlloyd commented on GitHub (Oct 28, 2023):

For 2-post racks, you can still have cable management installed on either (or both) sides, necessitating the ability to specify.

@eronlloyd commented on GitHub (Oct 28, 2023): For 2-post racks, you can still have cable management installed on either (or both) sides, necessitating the ability to specify.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:37:39 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bradley-rose commented on GitHub (Oct 28, 2023):

For 2-post racks, you can still have cable management installed on either (or both) sides, necessitating the ability to specify.

I only partially agree.

Even still, installing a forward-facing or rear-facing cable management unit would still consume the entire rack unit. You couldn't rack a forward- and rear-facing cable management unit in the same U.

I understand the potential need to specify the direction of its face, but for all intents and purposes, that U is still consumed. I'm not certain that it's even vital to specify the direction of cable management face. I don't currently specify which way they face in my racks; they're just blanks to consume the rack U labeled "1U Cable Management" or "2U Cable Management" classified under a "Rack Furniture" role.

@bradley-rose commented on GitHub (Oct 28, 2023): > For 2-post racks, you can still have cable management installed on either (or both) sides, necessitating the ability to specify. I only partially agree. Even still, installing a forward-facing or rear-facing cable management unit would still consume the entire rack unit. You couldn't rack a forward- and rear-facing cable management unit in the same U. I understand the potential need to specify the direction of its face, but for all intents and purposes, that U is still consumed. I'm not certain that it's even vital to specify the direction of cable management face. I don't currently specify which way they face in my racks; they're just blanks to consume the rack U labeled "1U Cable Management" or "2U Cable Management" classified under a "Rack Furniture" role.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:37:40 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@eronlloyd commented on GitHub (Nov 1, 2023):

I can't think of a hard use case to counter your point, but many cable managers are single sided, and because most racks have front and rear mounting holes, it could be possible to use one side for data cable management and the other for power cable management or another edge case. For that reason I'd prefer to maintain the ability to specify direction.

Perhaps an option for "Both" in the Rack Face field could be a compromise?

@eronlloyd commented on GitHub (Nov 1, 2023): I can't think of a hard use case to counter your point, but [many cable managers are single sided](https://www.fs.com/products/29038.html), and because most racks have front and rear mounting holes, it could be possible to use one side for data cable management and the other for power cable management or another edge case. For that reason I'd prefer to maintain the ability to specify direction. Perhaps an option for "Both" in the Rack Face field could be a compromise?
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:37:40 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jan 30, 2024):

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. NetBox is governed by a small group of core maintainers which means not all opened issues may receive direct feedback. Do not attempt to circumvent this process by "bumping" the issue; doing so will result in its immediate closure and you may be barred from participating in any future discussions. Please see our contributing guide.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Jan 30, 2024): This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. NetBox is governed by a small group of core maintainers which means not all opened issues may receive direct feedback. **Do not** attempt to circumvent this process by "bumping" the issue; doing so will result in its immediate closure and you may be barred from participating in any future discussions. Please see our [contributing guide](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md).
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:37:40 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Feb 29, 2024):

This issue has been automatically closed due to lack of activity. In an effort to reduce noise, please do not comment any further. Note that the core maintainers may elect to reopen this issue at a later date if deemed necessary.

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Feb 29, 2024): This issue has been automatically closed due to lack of activity. In an effort to reduce noise, please do not comment any further. Note that the core maintainers may elect to reopen this issue at a later date if deemed necessary.
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 pending closure type: feature
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#8512
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?