Is This Switch Patched

[Melissa Alvarado]

Ineed to build up a 42U rack with Patch Panels and Switches. I will have 3 - 48 port switches and 3 - 48 port Patch Panels. Am I better off lumping all the patch panels together and switches together or interchange them with cable management spaces? The interchange seems better as I can manage the cables better, but it will consume more space. Attached is what I am thinking of. Looking for suggestions and/or pics.

We do it with an interchange. 2u 48port panel, 1 1u wire managment, 1 1u 24 or 48 port switch depending on the desinty in that area of the panel (most are 24port), then start over again. most of the patch cables on the rack are 1 foot, with specialty ones being longer and going into the cable managment to make the transition to where they need to. I have doing it this way whenever possible for the last 15 years with very few problems.

I staggered mine: Patch-Switch-Patch-Firewall-Patch-Switch-Patch with 1 foot jumpers from the patch panels to the switches, all in a row nice and neat. Now I have a few not so neat cables due to having to add new phones and access points to a switch where only half of it is PoE (by design)

With 2 24 port patch panels per 48 port switch, and cable managers that makes a switch/patch group take 5U Min. So a 42 U rack would fit 8, assuming you have nothing else and want to lay on the floor to do cable punch downs.

That is exactly what we do. It works great, makes troubleshooting much easier, and allows entry level support to do more of the work. The only thing we do different is instead of the blank panel we use one with hooks on it. That way you still have something to manage the 1 or 2 stray cables.

To start we are going to take our patch panel and switch and divide them into 4 quadrants. This works even if the patch panel is in thirds. The idea is simple, divide the ports horizontally so half the ports are on the top and half on the bottom. Do the same thing vertically for left and right. This effectively gives us 1/4 of the ports in each quadrant that will allows us to follow another desired arrangement of all the top cables going to the upper cable management, and all the bottom cables going to the bottom. Coinciding with that, half the cables go to the left of the rack, half to the right. In the end you will see how this makes bundling better.

Now that we have divided these two pieces into quadrants we need to think logically about numbering to make the cabling structure work. There are a few ways you could do the counting so long as the end result is the same. The key is that each quadrant must count in one direction on the patch panel, and the opposite on the switch. I choose to count the switches quadrant rising starting with the left most port in each. In this case I count downwards from the left most ports on the patch panel. Others may count up from the outer most ports and inner most ports for the switch and patch panel respectively. Again, the key is to reverse the action of each quadrant between the patch panel and switch. Numerically represented below these two options.

As you can see I kept the quadrants in line. The left most port on the patch panel in quadrant A gets patched to the right most port on the switch in the same quadrant. Doing this means every port to the left you move on one device, you move in the opposite direction eventually converging on a cross pattern. This keeps that service loop relatively the same on each cable. See the demonstration picture below.

So contrast this picture i use the same cables, the same switch, and the same patch panel all in their same locations. I left the cables plugged into the switch where they were and modified the patch panel cabling to do a one to one match in port location with the switch. The number scheme looks like this.

Doing this causes the cabling to be in a less aesthetically pleasing bundle due to the service loops being essentially a varying distance from the vertical center of the rack as seen in the demonstration image below. Again, I used the same exact cables and equipment as the above picture using our theory of cabling outlined at the beginning of this post.

Matt Ouellette is a certified information technology professional residing in Southwest Michigan. His technology findings and advice can be found on his PacketPilot blog. Mr. Ouellette spent 4 years as an I.T. Technician before stepping into a Network Engineer role at Bronson Health Group. Since completing his Associates Degree in Network Administration Matt has taken a head on approach to career enrichment through obtaining credentials such as CCNP, CCNA Voice, MCSA: Server 2008, and VCP5. This passion for continued learning allows him to deliver up to date quality technical solutions.

I used to own a Pod HD with floorboard and was really happy with it until I saw something shiny and "upgraded" to a Firehawk FX. The FH FX is a great concept but I've been really disappointed mostly by the latency when switching patches. There is a large gap of silence, even after the v1.2 update, that just didn't exist on the Pod.

Thanks requietus666. That's interesting to note about snapshots and I will read up about it further but I don't think that's the solution i'm looking for. I often switch between acoustic with Piezo via the FX loop to full blown high gain distortion. Programming a snapshot to achieve that would be very convoluted. It also strikes me as odd that there is no audible delay in snapshots but there is between patches. Seems to be a shortcoming, and the presenter's view that that's just how DSP works in all effects units is incorrect. By the way, there is a snapshot-type function on the pod HD, you can program several effects to toggle on and off simultaneously using the stomp switches. Maybe not as fancy as helix but you could do it. Cheers.

The reason there is a delay in patches and not in snapshots is because the blocks and the signal path get unloaded then re-loaded when you switch patches whereas with a snapshot (or multiple footswitch assignments) you are manipulating the blocks in a single patch. That's going to be a normal artifact of any unit that's switching patches because patches are always loaded from scratch. And yes, you are exactly right, you can assign multiple actions to a specific footswitch both on the HD500X and on the Helix. Snapshots is simply an extension of that idea with a more robust and simple implementation to simplify setup and management with a few more options. You are still ultimately limited by the DSP in any given patch.

It's been a while since I used my HD500X so I'm not sure, but the Helix does allow you to do more than just turn blocks on and off with either the snapshots or assignments. You can also modify the settings of any block.

I'm not sure why this would be any more convoluted to accomplish with what you need to achieve. In essence your effects loop isn't affected when you switch between snapshots because it's the same patch with all the same blocks.

Yes. You have two possible paths.....Ooooooops, I mean four possible paths ( ;)) that you can create completely separate sounds in. With snapshots you'll be good. All you need now is a Varaix and you'll be set!!

By the way, there is a snapshot-type function on the pod HD, you can program several effects to toggle on and off simultaneously using the stomp switches. Maybe not as fancy as helix but you could do it. Cheers.

The way snapshots work in the Helix is a completely different beast than this, really... There are many things you can do with snapshots that simply aren't possible in any way with the HD series. It way may more than simply being able to assign multiple effects to the same switch. It's being able to alter the bypass states of every block in the preset as well controlling up to 64 parameters per snapshot... It's very powerful. And doing what you want to do - switch between different inputs with snapshots - isn't convoluted at all. It's very simple and straightforward to achieve.

Snapshots did largely address the latency issue within a preset. Although it is infrequent I still get some strange artifacts or glitchy sounds when switching between snapshots depending on my settings. I really look forward to Line6 and the industry as a whole addressing the issue of excessive latency between presets. This problem demonstrates in no uncertain terms that the hardware/firmware is not yet fully mature for these devices. There is no good way to sugarcoat it.

I really look forward to Line6 and the industry as a whole addressing the issue of excessive latency between presets. This problem demonstrates in no uncertain terms that the hardware/firmware is not yet fully mature for these devices. There is no good way to sugarcoat it.

i'm afraid the only way to go with this is to cripple the design of a unit. For instance, Digitech has a product that loads the next preset into a different processor or some such. But if they made Helix that way we'd have half the blocks and only one path, and nobody would buy it.

3a8082e126