Re:Proposed server purchase for GitLab.com
by late2part on Sunday December 11, 2016 @11:14PM
(#13155487)
Not really, although I agree with your reasoning. The other is issue is capex. When I deploy 240kW pods, if I use 80% breakers, I have to deploy 25% more PDUs than if I have 100% breakers.
Since my cabinet number is usually evenly divisible by N*PDUs, this impacts overall capital.
Re:Proposed server purchase for GitLab.com
by mohctp on Monday December 12, 2016 @09:29AM
(#13158197)
We are talking about 1 to 2 cab density here so capex doesn't carry that much weight.
Having a little headroom on your power circuits is also incredibility important, and not every facility will sell 100% rated breakers. It may make more sense to be in a facility with 80% rated breakers than 100%, even with the added capex of an extra PDU or two.
Goes back to my previous comment. What is important to you, at the pod / multiple pod level, isn't as important to the 1-2 cab deployment.
Re:Proposed server purchase for GitLab.com
by late2part on Monday December 12, 2016 @10:08AM
(#13158523)
That's fair and accurate.
Similarly, ensure spare room in the cabinet for adjustments, that thing you forgot, and small growth. Much better to have 70% full and not need the space then to have no free RU and need the space.
For a deployment of this scale it should be metered power (For example 1 (or more) 3phase a+b drops to each cabinet) where you only pay a Non-Recurring setup Charge (NRC) and then the MRC is based on actual power draw.
3phase also means fewer physical PDU's (uses less space), but more physical breakers. Over-building delivery capability will eliminate any over-draw concerns for startup cycles.