Cisco Redundant Power System (RPS2300) si

Solved
AbbyDoc-UK
Here to help

Cisco Redundant Power System (RPS2300) si

HI,

 

I am looking at using the Cisco Redundant Power System 2300 as redundant PS for some MS 255 switches but not sure which of the two configuration models (C3K-PWR-1150WAC or C3K-PWR-750WAC) to use and how many switches each will support?

 

Rack one (Separate Floor)

6 x Cisco Meraki MS225-48-HW

2 x Cisco Meraki MS225-24-HW

2 x Cisco Meraki MS225-24P-HW

 

Rack Two (Separate Floor)

4 x Cisco Meraki MS225-48-HW

1 x Cisco Meraki MS225-24P-HW

 

Regards,

 

Abby

 

Meraki Rocks every time!
1 Accepted Solution
cmr
Kind of a big deal
Kind of a big deal

We use them with MS225s and MS210s.  When using the 48 port LP switches or the 24 port P switches the 715W power supplies are fine.  The RPS takes two PSUs and although you can connect up to 6 switches to it, each power supply can only support one switch at once. 

View solution in original post

10 Replies 10
Ryan_Miles
Meraki Employee
Meraki Employee

You would need to note the max power load per the MS225 data sheet

 

Then, check the max output power of the RPS2300 in both configurations and do the math. It appears you'd want the 1150 W if supporting two 24 port switches or a 48 port full power switch.

Ryan / Meraki Solutions Engineer

If you found this post helpful, please give it Kudos. If my answer solves your problem please click Accept as Solution so others can benefit from it.
PhilipDAth
Kind of a big deal
Kind of a big deal

The RPS systems are not that great.  They have all sorts of gotchas.  I won't sell them to my customers.

 

For customers that want greater redundancy - stick to switches that can take redundant power supplies, and you won't be disappointed.

cmr
Kind of a big deal
Kind of a big deal

We use them with MS225s and MS210s.  When using the 48 port LP switches or the 24 port P switches the 715W power supplies are fine.  The RPS takes two PSUs and although you can connect up to 6 switches to it, each power supply can only support one switch at once. 

@cmr  based on the below power load and the fact that the RPS can support up to 6 devices at once providing redundancy for up to two at a time depending on configuration I am thinking.

 

2022-07-26_22-52-55.jpg

 

1st Floor

2 x RPS C3K-PWR-750WAC each with one 750 PS

6 x Cisco Meraki MS225-48-HW

2 x Cisco Meraki MS225-24-HW

 

1 x RPS C3K-PWR-750WAC each with two 750 PS

2 x Cisco Meraki MS225-24P-HW

 

2nd Floor

2 x RPS C3K-PWR-750WAC each with two 750 PS

4 x Cisco Meraki MS225-48-HW

1 x Cisco Meraki MS225-24P-HW

 

We will have additional redundancy such has further connecting the RPSs to UPS and independent AC sources.

Meraki Rocks every time!
cmr
Kind of a big deal
Kind of a big deal

Looks okay, but I would spread the 1st floor ones out differently as you have a 4:1 ratio for the non-PoE switches but a 1:1 ratio for the PoE ones, unless the PoE switches are much more important?

@cmr thanks for the suggestion. How does the below look?

 

1st Floor

1 x RPS C3K-PWR-750WAC each with one 750 PS

4 x Cisco Meraki MS225-48-HW

 

1 x RPS C3K-PWR-750WAC each with one 750 PS

2 x Cisco Meraki MS225-48-HW

2 x Cisco Meraki MS225-24-HW

 

1 x RPS C3K-PWR-750WAC each with two 750 PS

2 x Cisco Meraki MS225-24P-HW

 

2nd Floor

2 x RPS C3K-PWR-750WAC each with two 750 PS

4 x Cisco Meraki MS225-48-HW

1 x Cisco Meraki MS225-24P-HW

Meraki Rocks every time!
cmr
Kind of a big deal
Kind of a big deal

I would change the 1st floor as below (but it does depend on what is connected to each switch)

 

1 x RPS with two C3K-PWR-750WAC 

3 x Cisco Meraki MS225-48-HW

1 x Cisco Meraki MS225-24-HW

1 x Cisco Meraki MS225-24P-HW

 

1 x RPS with two C3K-PWR-750WAC 

3 x Cisco Meraki MS225-48-HW

1 x Cisco Meraki MS225-24-HW

1 x Cisco Meraki MS225-24P-HW

@cmr yes that will work too thanks. Do you mean the importance of what device is connected to each switch?

Meraki Rocks every time!

@cmr Thank you for the contribution. 😊

Meraki Rocks every time!
Get notified when there are additional replies to this discussion.