Re: Is there an electrician in the house?

[Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () netmore net>]

> From the URL you sent:

        Note: The CCPDUs plug directly
        into the back of Matrix-UPS and
        should not be used with wall
        outlets.

A grounding issue, maybe?

You could just buy the Matrix battery back-ups to use with the CCPDUs,
then plug the single cord from the Matrix into the provided socket. 
Redundant, but it should solve the problem - and shouldn't cost
$5K/month, either.


Phil Reese wrote:
> My company is finishing up the build out of a number of ccTLD DNS and
> web server data centers in collocation space.  We've run into the
> following issue that I'd be interested in this group's opinion.
>
> Our data centers will have a number of Linux servers running on 110v
> power, no problem there, just plug into the power strips provided.  Then
> we'll have a couple IBM S80 servers and two trays of disks that both
> require 208v 30amp and an L6 plug.  Now the max rated power of all the
> devices is well within the two 208/30 circuits we've ordered.
>
> The difficulty is that the collocation company provides a single L6
> receptacle per circuit deployed.  We'd planned on putting one S80 server
> and one tray of disks on each of the two circuits.  HOWEVER, each box
> has its own cord and plug, i.e., two plugs.  APC, and I'm sure others,
> make essentially a 208/30amp outlet strip
> (http://www.apc.com/products/accessories/wiring_ccpdu.cfm , cost between
> $185-$200) that we'd planned to use.
>
> As we finish up the build out, the collocation company has informed us
> that the device, such as the APC, are not allowed.  Their only suggested
> solution is to purchase as many circuits as we have plugs to connect.
> Of course each additional 30 amp circuit will cost us just over
> $1k/month!  All totaled, we'd need an additional 5 circuits between our
> east and west coast locations, or just over $5k/mo, $60k/yr, versus
> $1000 one time fee to APC!
>
> By definition, collocation companies need to be paranoid about
> everything.  However, when I asked them what is the issue with the APC
> device they just invoked 'this could cause an overload and potential
> fire hazard' as their technical position on why this passive, UL listed,
> device isn't allowed.
>
> Can anyone explain their side of the story, citing a bit more
> technologically based explanation?
>
> Phil Reese

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
 Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () netmore net> // 818.535.5024 voice