5 Sep
2008
5 Sep
'08
9:55 a.m.
On Friday 05 September 2008, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 12:19:33PM +0100, Gordon J. C.
Pearce wrote:
If you think that's heavy, you've never lifted IBM hardware. For a
(relatively modern) 8U machine, an IBM SP high node is amazingly
heavy/dense.
Pat
--
Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 17:16 -0400, Patrick
Finnegan wrote:
Exactly. That's why HP also added a nice load of heavy steel plates
to the bottom of our HP racks in a previous job. The rack contained
some HP N- and L-class PA-RISC machines. Damn heavy iron - we needed
3 people to actually lift the damn things into their rack locations.
You really don't want the whole rack to tip over when you pull one of
them out for hardware maintainance/replacement. On Thursday 04 September 2008, Tony Duell wrote:
Of course, having 100kg of ballast in the bottom does give you the
rather handy feature of making the rack not tip over and kill you
when you pull a machine at the top... > > For a few bucks, you could get a 5 Volt
transformer with a
> > decent current rating of 10 Amps, and not have to worry
> > about the number of tubes you need to feed for a while.
> >
> > Filament transformers come in many voltages other than 6.3.
>
> Ya, it would be more authentic but the filament supply would
> then weigh 20 lbs instead of 2.
And why is this a problem? It's hardly going to be a portable
device, is it?
Tony, your reasoning sounds like what IBM uses to decide how much
something should weigh.
They're about the only company I know of that takes a 1900lb rack
of machines, and then puts another 200lbs of steel plates on the
bottom to add weight. (IBM SP frames)
Now that I think about it, I'm surprised that I don't yet have a
bad back thanks to my IBM gear.