From: Roeland Meyer (no email)
Date: Sat Nov 04 2000 - 21:17:35 EST
There are a lot of non-fire reasons that I like the presence of an EPO
switch and I would design one in regardless. However, its requirement in the
fire-code makes the expense easier to justify. I design framerooms with many
smaller UPS's distributed throughout the racks, as opposed to a central pile
of batteries. As a result, I have gel cells everywhere. I usually use
Liebert GT's, every two racks, with power pod and interlock, at the bottom
of the rack.
Some of the non-fire reasons;
Ground-faults placing 120VAC on the rack frames.
Data intrusion prevention (Emergency SCRAM).
> From: Sean Donelan [mailto:]
> Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 5:56 PM
> Several people have asked where can they obtain a copy of the US
> Air Force draft.
> Engineering Technical Letter (ETL) 00-3: Fire Protection Engineering
> Criteria - Electronic Equipment Installations
> I find it interesting how the designs created by people who have to
> operate an installation are different from the designs from
> and vendors, or even the National Fire Protection Association. Or
> commercials on television like those being run by Janus.
> But back to my original question. What is the real fire risk for
> ISPs and collocation operators. Is it burned buttered popcorn in the
> microwave setting off the FM-200 system? Is it home-made computers?
> Is it the Emergency Power Off switch?
> State Farm Insurance has started a project to change the
> National Electrical
> Code for computer rooms and the requirement for an EPO
> switch. Is this
> something other ISPs and collocation providers would be interested in
> seeing changed? If so, we need to collect data and evidence
> to support
> the change.