[c-nsp] ASR9001 Vs ASR1006

[Tom Hill]

On 14/05/16 21:56, James Ventre wrote:
> ​ In our facility, with our racks, the only way make sure they get fresh
> air from the front is to use front to back airflow boxes.  The facility
> seals off the front of the rack to make sure the two don't mix.  If we
> use a box with side intake, it's going to suck in hot air.  There's no
> way around it.  The front face of the rack is the only part of the rack
> that has access to cold air.  We try to only buy boxes with FtB airflow,
> but we've had a few instances where we couldn't, but it wasn't for a
> lack of trying. 

You *really* need to mount the router at front of the rack, not the back
(and route the cables around to the front). Given its depth comparative
to a regular 1200mm deep rack it really needs to be sucking 'side air'
from nearer the cold aisle.

That said, having it in a rack stacked with a tonne of other things
might also be of detriment. Cisco actually recommend ensuring there's 6"
of space either side of your 9001 when installed:

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/asr9000/hardware/installation/guide/asr9001/asr9001HIG/asr9001HIGprep.html#27774


And as requested, here's the hottest running 9001 I have - stuffed in a
tiny Quarter cabinet. Output grepped for inlet temps:

Sat May 14 20:57:10.061 UTC
        host    Inlet0                  36.5
        host    Inlet1                  33.1
        host    Inlet0                  40.5
        host    Inlet0                  34.0

So it's effectively on the limit, in pretty much the worst conditions
I've got. That's a v1 fan tray, too. The v2 appears to spin higher for
the same temps, but I'm lacking 'real' data from Cisco on what that
difference is.

If in doubt, buy the 9001's front-to-back baffle kit (ASR-9001-PLENUM)
but be warned that this does double its height to 4U. :)

-- 
Tom