Anyone have any long-term experiences regarding (wall) mounting
rack mountable kit front-down or front-up? Reliability,
accessibility, etc. And, any suggestions to protect the openings-susceptible-to-gravitational-interference?

Any suggestions as to which (-up or -down) might be better?

For a start, I'd like to mount six 48/52-port switches.
Most of the mounting kits suggest this is within their
typical weight limits. But, 4U seems to be the most common
arrangement (I'd like to have to avoid using two kits)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 05/02/2025 12:28, Don Y wrote:

Anyone have any long-term experiences regarding (wall) mounting
rack mountable kit front-down or front-up?  Reliability,
accessibility, etc.  And, any suggestions to protect the openings-susceptible-to-gravitational-interference?

If it is all on forced ventilation then the only problem might be that
some fan bearings are only designed to be in one orientation.

Passive heatsinks won't work as well if their fins are not aligned with
the direction that warm air wants to rise.

Any suggestions as to which (-up or -down) might be better?

I prefer not to have to crawl under things to see the front panel YMMV.
My pet hate are the input connectors on big display screens in positions
where it is just about impossible to reach them to plug in a cable.

For a start, I'd like to mount six 48/52-port switches.
Most of the mounting kits suggest this is within their
typical weight limits.  But, 4U seems to be the most common
arrangement (I'd like to have to avoid using two kits)

Provided they don't run too hot should be OK.

--
Martin Brown

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Don Y <[email protected]d> wrote:

Anyone have any long-term experiences regarding (wall) mounting
rack mountable kit front-down or front-up? Reliability,
accessibility, etc. And, any suggestions to protect the openings-susceptible-to-gravitational-interference?

Any suggestions as to which (-up or -down) might be better?

For a start, I'd like to mount six 48/52-port switches.
Most of the mounting kits suggest this is within their
typical weight limits. But, 4U seems to be the most common
arrangement (I'd like to have to avoid using two kits)

If your kit contains any relays, make sure they will be mounted so that
the contact gap is in the vertical plane. That allows dirt to drop out,
rather than being retained and ground into the contact faces.


--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/5/2025 8:16 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

Don Y <[email protected]d> wrote:

Anyone have any long-term experiences regarding (wall) mounting
rack mountable kit front-down or front-up? Reliability,
accessibility, etc. And, any suggestions to protect the
openings-susceptible-to-gravitational-interference?

Any suggestions as to which (-up or -down) might be better?

For a start, I'd like to mount six 48/52-port switches.
Most of the mounting kits suggest this is within their
typical weight limits. But, 4U seems to be the most common
arrangement (I'd like to have to avoid using two kits)

If your kit contains any relays, make sure they will be mounted so that
the contact gap is in the vertical plane. That allows dirt to drop out, rather than being retained and ground into the contact faces.

The (*these*) switches don't have any relays (AFAICT). But, I
will have to consider that for some of the mains-related
switching.

Thanks!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/5/2025 7:39 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

On 05/02/2025 12:28, Don Y wrote:

Anyone have any long-term experiences regarding (wall) mounting
rack mountable kit front-down or front-up?  Reliability,
accessibility, etc.  And, any suggestions to protect the
openings-susceptible-to-gravitational-interference?

If it is all on forced ventilation then the only problem might be that some fan
bearings are only designed to be in one orientation.

Hmmm... hadn't thought of that. OTOH, unless the kit vendor has
noted this in his selection of fans, there's not much I can do to
determine if it would be at risk (other than wait for it to shit the bed)

Passive heatsinks won't work as well if their fins are not aligned with the direction that warm air wants to rise.

*These* switches are actively cooled so I am assuming the orientation
of fins is to ensure their exposure to the air flow.

They are switches so I imagine, internally, they are N copies of
the same basic circuitry laid out side-by-side and not a hodge-podge
of "stuff" scattered about.

Any suggestions as to which (-up or -down) might be better?

I prefer not to have to crawl under things to see the front panel YMMV.

I'm mounting this high so I'll be looking *up* at it. I suspect
ports down is best for long-term deployment (dust and debris less
likely to collect in an UNCOVERED port -- expecting someone to
remember to RE-cover a port made free is probably wishful thinking).

This also allows the airflow to progress from bottom to top as
the rear-mounted fans exhaust air.

My pet hate are the input connectors on big display screens in positions where
it is just about impossible to reach them to plug in a cable.

Not just screens. None of the backsides (or undersides) of the kit
in my office are easily accessible. I've made (lamintated!) photos
of the backs of each device so I "know" the positions and orientations
of all of the connectors without having to see them.

I've also reconsidered the connectors that I will be using on *my*
kit with an eye towards durability and ease of mating (try mating
an 8P8C "blind")

Some years ago, I rescued a short (4 inch?) USB A-A M-F cable.
I couldn't imagine ANY use for it but it was "unique" enough to
merit a spot in a box of USB cables.

It has now found a home on SWMBO's laptop so she can more easily
locate the connector for her thumb drives!

For a start, I'd like to mount six 48/52-port switches.
Most of the mounting kits suggest this is within their
typical weight limits.  But, 4U seems to be the most common
arrangement (I'd like to have to avoid using two kits)

Provided they don't run too hot should be OK.

That will be something to determine empirically. It is NOT in "living
space" so likely to see greater temperature extremes. But, I don't
want to bring those BTUs into the house (they are PoE ports so it's
not just the power associated with the switching fabric; ~300 PoE
ports represent a pretty substantial power load).

I figure this is the sort of engineering decision that will have to be
made in a site-specific context.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/5/2025 11:21 AM, John R Walliker wrote:

Some fanless 24-port network switches from HP specify that they can
be mounted with the connectors up or down but not sideways.

Hmmm... I have three such beasts in the office and had never noticed
the holes in the sides. I had just assumed they dissipated heat
through the skin.

[Not a problem for the office switches, though, as they are mounted horizontally]

Sideways mounting would give the best airflow, so there must be some
other explanation.  My best guess is that the relatively large
"side" ventilation holes would not allow the product to pass regulatory safety testing in that orientation.  (Holes must be small enough that burning molten plastic cannot fall through the holes and ignite
flammable materials below.  Similarly, holes in the top must prevent
flames from escaping and they must protect against foreign objects from dropping in and causing damage.

My reason for mounting the switches vertically, front-down was to
minimize the chances of "stuff" (detris) getting into the ports.
I figure I could more easily "protect" the fans (being on top) with
just another layer of filtration.

I don't see any prohibitions against particular mounting configurations
on most of the switches I've (casually) examined. So, I suspect
it's not an issue in the *general* case.

Lots of ambiguous chatter, however, in folks describing their preferences
and concerns for these types of mounts. As expected, an equal number advocating/warning for/against each! <frown>

Thankfully, this won't be something homeowners/businessmen will likely
install by themselves. So, there's a chance that some care will be
exercised, there!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-02-05, Don Y <[email protected]d> wrote:

Anyone have any long-term experiences regarding (wall) mounting
rack mountable kit front-down or front-up? Reliability,
accessibility, etc. And, any suggestions to protect the openings-susceptible-to-gravitational-interference?

some rack computers have filters, but appliances less so.

Any suggestions as to which (-up or -down) might be better?

why not edge-side-up?

--
Jasen.
🇺🇦 Слава Україні

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/8/2025 10:42 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2025-02-05, Don Y <[email protected]d> wrote:

Anyone have any long-term experiences regarding (wall) mounting
rack mountable kit front-down or front-up? Reliability,
accessibility, etc. And, any suggestions to protect the
openings-susceptible-to-gravitational-interference?

some rack computers have filters, but appliances less so.

But you could always tack something onto the exterior to
protect openings from detris. That, assuming the openings
are never in flux (as the ports would inevitably be).

Any suggestions as to which (-up or -down) might be better?

why not edge-side-up?

Then the top and bottom -most ports have to be in the range
of the user's reach. Anything above the topmost port would
be wasted/unuseful space.

Ports down lets the body of the switch occupy the space
*above* the user's reach.

[Presumably, the power inlet -- now at the back of the switch,
considerably above the down-facing front -- needs infrequent/seldom
access]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)