[racktables-users] Re: Virtual Server

If a bay diagram (something to hand to the physical installer with no
more instruction given) was the desire then orientation could matter.

On the other hand, We are all being slowly conditioned that everything
should be wysiwyg.

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Robert Lazzurs <rob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Bill Jacqmein <wrjacqmein@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  > The base problem seems simple. a few more layers of abstraction should do.
>  >  Maybe being able to define that this 6u can contain upto 10 6ux1.9in 
> units?
>  >
>  >  The differing orientations could be the showstopper.
>  >  I dont see a good way around that without creating generics and the
>  >  special templates when a new vendor shakes things up.
>
>  Does the orientations really matter to everyone.  While it would be
>  nice if it was an exact diagram of the physical rack I would suggest
>  that it would not be essential for the graphical diagram to be exact
>  to that level, surly just module numbers or something similar would be
>  enough to represent that data in a useful way.  Eg fast ethernet
>  module 1 is in bay 3:1.
>
>

Other related posts: