I wanted to know if anyone has the Nexus 7009 chassis installed into a 600 wide rack with the sides fitted and if they are experiencing heat issues?
My client will be replacing their aging 6509 chassis with 7009 devices, but the physicals dont tally with the install guidelines for the 7009 series chassis. The current install of the 6509s does not tally with the recommended install guidelines for those either, but they have not expereienced any heat issues...
The 7009 will be fitted with 2xSUP2E, 3x48portSFP-F2E cards and 2x10GSFP-M2 cards with 2x6K PSUs. I am genuinely concerned they may cook these devices, but space restrictions look like vetoing the upgrade to 800 wide racks. Likewise moving to 7010 chassis may prove tricky due to existing other installs within the racks limiting vertical space.
Does anyone have a real world installation with similar install restraints, and whats their experiences?
I have experience with 7010 not 7009. If your cooling is sufficient for your environment today with the 6500 in the rack, it should be sufficient for the 7009. If your 6500 is a none-V-E chassis then the cooling is side-to-side and so is 7009. If you are using a V-E chassis then the cooling is front to back and if you want to match that your choice is 7010 which is also front to back. The big difference between the 6500 chassis and the 7000 is the depth. The 7000 is 29 inch deep vs the 6500 is about 18 in . Make sure your cabinet or rack is secure enough to accommodate that.
Thanks for the response. I am aware of the air flows with this chassis, and that the 7010 offers front to back (which is a possibility). I was hoping for a response from someone who actually runs these devices for real in a similar configuration and rack size. These are quite expensive boxes to install, discover you cook it and then have to explain that you cannot remediate the situation as you cannot actually put in bigger racks to accommodate the enhanced airflow requirements...
Does anyone have the 7009 in a 600 wide rack and do you have any cooling issues? I am trying to ascertain if the requirements document is a real world requirement or just Cisco being very cautious...