Consistent Design For Fanless MS & MZ

Kind of a big deal

Consistent Design For Fanless MS & MZ

A plea to whoever oversees product design usability.


The MX and Z security devices appear to be logically designed with the user in mind. The MS switches, less so.

If a device is fanless, there is a reasonable probability that it will be deployed in a domestic or professional office or clinical setting.

Very often devices in this type of deployment are not mounted in a rack per se, but on a convenient shelf, often in line of sight.


Without rack mounting it is usually neater and easier for admins if the ports are placed on the rear of the device, so they line up with the MX ports. Having to lead cables from front to rear to link the devices adds to the rats' nest impression, especially if they are in full sight. To make matters worse, many of the higher specification cables used (future proofing) are so stiff they cannot be laid out neatly and conveniently. 


So please, can we have some MS120s with the connectors on the rear (like the MX64 and 65). And provide the option of turning off the lights on the device and the Ethernet/ SFP ports.


Likewise, it is often not sufficient just to turn off the device light on the MR, the lights on the Ethernet port need to be capable of being turned off as well.




Robin St.Clair | Principal, Caithness Analytics | @uberseehandel
2 Replies 2
Meraki Employee
Meraki Employee

Thanks for sharing the requirement @Uberseehandel.  I did bounce this info over to the MS team.  Unlikely this will become a new form factor on the MS120 platform, but that's not to say it wouldn't show up in a future model.  No promises!



Thanks for making the point.


In the mean time, I shall have to invest in a small rack, with a 24-port patch panel. When UPS and a power switch panel are added as well (and a couple of DIN rails for my "projects"), it comes to an awful lot. And start making up my own cables . . . 

Robin St.Clair | Principal, Caithness Analytics | @uberseehandel
Get notified when there are additional replies to this discussion.