Modifying a Device Type doesn't update existing devices?

[roblarose]

We realized after creating several PDUs that they did not have Power Ports, but we do want to be able to track which UPS they're fed from.

Adding a Power Port to the device type didn't show one on existing devices, though. We had to re-create all the PDUs.

Is there a way to update existing devices w/ changes to the underlying type?

[therealjoshuad]

Editing a device type doesn't edit the devices, you should be able to go to the device itself, and add a power port there

[roblarose]

Doesn't look like we were able to add power ports on our PDU device types.

rob larose | engineer | rock paper scissors | 212-255-6446 |
www.rockpaperscissors.com http://rockpaperscissors.com/

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 5:57 PM, therealjoshuad notifications@github.com
wrote:

Editing a device type doesn't edit the devices, you should be able to go
to the device itself, and add a power port there

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#687 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWUyk73lhHN8SWrICa6G5DrnKWvbsp22ks5q9PLwgaJpZM4KwM1W
.

[therealjoshuad]

Do you have the little plus signs near the connections? Or am I thinking of something different?

[roblarose]

Nope. I create a new device type with "PDU" checked and then create a
device of that type, then when I look at "critical connections" on the
device, power port is not an option. Screenshots attached.

Other device types (non-PDU) allow me to add power ports.

[image: Inline image 3][image: Inline image 2][image: Inline image 1]

rob larose | engineer | rock paper scissors | 212-255-6446 |
www.rockpaperscissors.com http://rockpaperscissors.com/

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:10 PM, therealjoshuad notifications@github.com
wrote:

Do you have the little plus signs near the connections? Or am I thinking
of something different?
[image: image]
https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/3893036/20232972/a241abea-a831-11e6-8937-3894b9978945.png

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#687 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWUykypSVZFnCG-vOnsMJjJVMP6RUbowks5q9PXPgaJpZM4KwM1W
.

[LBegnaud]

when you specify something as a pdu, the interfaces are considered power ports

[roblarose]

Which do you mean? Interfaces still seems to be NICs.

I can add Power Outlets to the a PDU device, but I can only add a power
port (under "Critical Connections") on the Device Type.

--Rob

rob larose | engineer | rock paper scissors | 212-255-6446 |
www.rockpaperscissors.com http://rockpaperscissors.com/

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:29 PM, LBegnaud notifications@github.com wrote:

when you specify something as a pdu, the interfaces are considered power
ports

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#687 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWUykxl1R6dYUEpxlcF_vuVmi0ecBclZks5q9PpygaJpZM4KwM1W
.

[LBegnaud]

When you define the device type, you uncheck "this is a network device" I believe

[roblarose]

Your screenshot shows outlets though, not plugs/ports.

We're doing UPS with outlets connected to PDU power ports/plugs, then the
PDU outlets connect to the device power ports/plugs.

--Rob

This message was composed
entirely with my right thumb.
Please excuse any typos.

On Nov 11, 2016, at 7:02 PM, LBegnaud notifications@github.com wrote:

[image: image]
https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/15981748/20233768/ce08fcc2-a838-11e6-9a00-bf04e307fbd8.png

When you define the device type, you uncheck "this is a network device" I
believe

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#687 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWUyk__bt0HuVnmc7qmAMmSv82acG92Dks5q9QH3gaJpZM4KwM1W
.

[jeremystretch]

Modifying the components of a device type does not retroactively modify existing devices. This is an intentional limitation to avoid conflicts.

NetBox doesn't currently allow you to add power ports to a device which is classified as a PDU, because there's no way to model the power circuits that feed PDUs. This is sort of a place holder for when we incorporate structured power (see #54).

This raises a bug in that a PDU device type can be assigned power port templates. I've opened #691 to address this. For now, we simply don't model anything upstream of the PDU; again, #54 is open to extend the data model for this eventually.

[roblarose]

Hi Jeremy,

I see -- you're saying the lack of power ports is intentional and the
fact that i can add one to the type itself is the bug? :-)

We recognize that you don't model the AC source circuits, but I imagine
in the majority of use cases, you have at least 2 PDU devices in line (UPS
-> PDU -> Device) so I'd argue in favor of ability to assign PDU power
ports for that reason regardless of the state of #54.

We're going ahead with our PDUs having power ports. If/when you decide
to fix that "bug," will we have trouble, or just not be able to do it
anymore going forward from there?

--Rob

rob larose | engineer | rock paper scissors | 212-255-6446 |
www.rockpaperscissors.com http://rockpaperscissors.com/

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Jeremy Stretch notifications@github.com
wrote:

Modifying the components of a device type does not retroactively modify
existing devices. This is an intentional limitation to avoid conflicts.

NetBox doesn't currently allow you to add power ports to a device which is
classified as a PDU, because there's no way to model the power circuits
that feed PDUs. This is sort of a place holder for when we incorporate
structured power (see #54
#54).

This raises a bug in that a PDU device type can be assigned power port
templates. I've opened #691
#691 to address this. For
now, we simply don't model anything upstream of the PDU; again, #54
#54 is open to extend the
data model for this eventually.

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#687 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWUyk0DAhrTmEY8PvY5N0Y8uHf0FjWJSks5q-IQNgaJpZM4KwM1W
.

[jeremystretch]

That's a fair point. NetBox was originally developed to represent data center environments in which power feeds external to each rack are delivered directly to PDUs. #691 will allow the assignment of power ports to PDUs; this will be available in v1.7.1.

Once we get around to #54, we'll likely model power feeds the way we do data circuits: a power port can be connected to either a power outlet (upstream device) or to a power circuit.

[roblarose]

Sounds great. Thanks. :-)

We love the product, btw -- just the thing for a smallish server room setup
like ours.

--Rob

rob larose | engineer | rock paper scissors | 212-255-6446 |
www.rockpaperscissors.com http://rockpaperscissors.com/

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Jeremy Stretch notifications@github.com
wrote:

That's a fair point. NetBox was originally developed to represent data
center environments in which power feeds external to each rack are
delivered directly to PDUs. #691
#691 will allow the
assignment of power ports to PDUs; this will be available in v1.7.1.

Once we get around to #54
#54, we'll likely model
power feeds the way we do data circuits: a power port can be connected to
either a power outlet (upstream device) or to a power circuit.

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#687 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWUyk2yTVvcz8fLfFjzN96WbQxcsjcxyks5q-IzegaJpZM4KwM1W
.