Netonix Forums

From POWER flag on WS-12-250-DC:

When power is too low or temperatures are too high the switch will begin disabling PoE ports to keep the system running. Ports with the lowest priority will be disabled first.



My questiont here is about "what way" the scale in Netonix products go, in this example I can set a value from 1-12 corresponding to how many ports there are I guess.

EXAMPLE: So if I set priority number 1 on port number 3, and priority 8 on port number 2, wich port is considered the low priority in case of low power then?

I would guess port number 3 with priority number 1 will be the HIGH priority port here thus keeping its power, but I just wanted to post the question here to make sure I understand this right!



SECOND Question: IF SO is this true for other numbered priority settings in Netonix switches(f,ex.STP) that lower number means HIGHER priority?


Sorry for the stupid question, but just making sure I understand it right so I dont get any bad surprises someday!

If you look and read everything on that Power Tab including mouse over balloons it explains that the higher the Priority # the higher the priority.

It was a heated discussion which meant higher priority when writing this code. I wanted 1 to be highest priority ad 12 to be the lowest priority but it was decided that the higher the number the more important the port is.


So 12 a higher priority than 1 therefore Priority 12 will be the last to lose power and 1 is the least priority and the first to be sacrificed.

Thx for the answer, now I am VERY HAPPY that I asked! :)

For me the logical reasonment in such a scale would be that number 1 was the highest priority thus keeping its power longest.
Then just give higher numbers to whatever many ports the switch would have to distinguish what port is most important to power. But I was obviusly worng! ;)

Now that I know that not to be true, its no problem anymore I can readjust all my settings.

But I guess there might be more people out there thinking the same way as me(and you apparantly), so I would recommend to explain the scale better somehow. Either just adding a line on the page somwhere that scale is: "1=Lowest priority - 12=Highest priority" Or something like that.

The mouseover over the priority field only shows us: "1-12" , And to me that is no indication on whatever is top and bottom. I just assumed it said 1-12 since there are 12 ports on this switch!


THEN on to my second question, on STP:
Is the priority here as on other routers/switches wich as I am used to it is: LOWER number(Relative to other ports) means HIGHER priority for that port???
F.ex. 3 ports with priority: Port1:128 P2:144 P3:176 In this case Port 1 would have HIGHEST priority?!

ASDN wrote:THEN on to my second question, on STP:
Is the priority here as on other routers/switches wich as I am used to it is: LOWER number(Relative to other ports) means HIGHER priority for that port???
F.ex. 3 ports with priority: Port1:128 P2:144 P3:176 In this case Port 1 would have HIGHEST priority?!

When it comes to STP that is a "Standard" protocol so we follow the standard. A google of STP/RSTP will explain those fields.

We do not write the code that controls the switch core that is written by Vittesse the chip maker. All we do with the standard switch core functions like RSTP, LACP, and such is write the UI that allows you to input the values and then we configure the core with the values you provide.

sirhc wrote:...I wanted 1 to be highest priority ad 12 to be the lowest priority but it was decided that the higher the number the more important the port is. So 12 a higher priority than 1 therefore Priority 12 will be the last to lose power and 1 is the least priority and the first to be sacrificed.

In my opinion you should have argued your case with the other developers more passionately sirhc! I agree with ASDN; I would have expected 1 to be the highest priority, and last to be powered down. Maybe in the next firmware release you could add the word "numerically" to the explanatory text on the web UI, e.g. "Ports with the (numerically) lowest priority will be disabled first."

I'm glad I Googled this.

Nice feature though!

Thanks
Glenn

Maybe it will help to think of it in a different way... it's the sequence they get turned off in: 1 is the first to go, 2 is the second to go, etc.

It's easy to see it the other way too especially when we've all experienced products that include an "enable the disable function" feature this isn't too bad by comparison . In any case it points out the "never assume anything" rule and it pays to read the manual (or popups as the case may be).

I argued to have Priority the other way around but come on guys it is right there on the screen?

The only way I can think of to make it more clear would be to hire little people to hide in the boxes and pop out and read it to you.

Yes a manual would be nice but if most people refuse to even read what is on the UI right in front of you how many people would read the manual? We have opted to spend more time to lay out the interface as simple as possible and provide Balloons, Pop-Ups and in this case a BIG sign explaining the value.

I received two PMs today asking me where to download firmware???? There is a single sheet of paper laying on top of every switch telling you not only that you should upgrade your firmware before using the switch but it tells people where to get said firmware?

I guess we can look into Audio Messages that play through the speakers on each Tab and on key mouse overs?

Too bad Majel Barrett-Roddenberry is dead, that would be so cool to have her voice talk to you from the UI.
http://www.soundboard.com/sb/Star_Trek_Computer_voice

CLICK IMAGE BELOW TO VIEW FULL SIZE

Glad I read this thread. We configured 10 switches with 1 naturally being the highest priority....sigh...

rkelly1 wrote:Glad I read this thread. We configured 10 switches with 1 naturally being the highest priority....sigh...

I agree it should be the other way around, but come on guys it is right there on the screen? (see 2 posts up for picture)

Joshuanuby wrote:Dear all,
What will happend carbon loading high and carbon loading low in c18 columns.please explain


Thanks,
Ashwin

What?