search

socallinuxexpo / scale-network

SCaLE's on-site expo network configurations, wifi, tooling, and scripts
https://www.socallinuxexpo.org/
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
46 stars 19 forks source link

rename expo floor switches/aps #564

Closed davidelang closed 8 months ago

davidelang commented 1 year ago

current names are A wall then A - C (front to back) and 1-5 (typically left to right)

problems: booths are numbered right to left sort order sorts by front to back, not side to side, when there are only 4 rows + wall the 'missing ones' show up in the middle of the list.

solution:

next year have the letter be the left/right direction and the number be the front-back position.

owendelong commented 1 year ago

The problem with this theory is that we define 3 letters (front/middle/back) and 5 numbers + wall (to support up to 5 rows).

How about the solution is we just place the numbers (1/2/3) in the corresponding order with the booth aisle numbers.

davidelang commented 1 year ago

On Sat, 25 Mar 2023, Owen DeLong wrote:

The problem with this theory is that we define 3 letters (front/middle/back) and 5 numbers + wall (to support up to 5 rows).

How about the solution is we just place the numbers (1/2/3) in the corresponding order with the booth aisle numbers.

the problem is that the number of rows (digits) varies. This year it was 4 + wall, a few years ago it was 5+ wall. With the highest number being against the wall. given that we are doing 1 on the wall, 2 on the row next to it, 1 in the next row, etc, numbering right to left is a problem

for the record, this is assuming that the show ends up with a similar layout in the future, we've seen it change before.

David Lang

owendelong commented 1 year ago

It really isn’t. This year, for example, we had 4 rows each with three switches and one on the wall. This was [1234][ABC] plus WallA.

We placed the 1-4 switches in the opposite row order, but there was no need to do so. The switches for non-existent row 5 didn’t get deployed and weren’t needed.

Owen

davidelang commented 1 year ago

so how do you number the APs so that they work with both 4 and 5 rows?

David Lang

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023, Owen DeLong wrote:

It really isn’t. This year, for example, we had 4 rows each with three switches and one on the watch. This was [1234][ABC] plus WallA.

We placed the 1-4 switches in the opposite row order, but there was no need to do so. The switches for non-existent row 5 didn’t get deployed and weren’t needed.

Owen

owendelong commented 1 year ago

IMHO, number them 1 through 5 and simply don't deploy row 5 if it's not needed. Is there some problem with this deployment that I'm missing?

owendelong commented 1 year ago

The real issue was deploying the switches in the incorrect order (Row 1 switches got deployed in row 4 and vice versa, siimilarly 2 and 3 were swapped). If we deployed in the order Wall...1...2...3...4...[5]...[6]...??? I think we'd be fine (which is what was intended, but not what happened).

owendelong commented 1 year ago

I'm ready to close this as a training issue rather than a numbering/naming problem unless you have further comment, David.

davidelang commented 1 year ago

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, Owen DeLong wrote:

The real issue was deploying the switches in the incorrect order (Row 1 switches got deployed in row 4 and vice versa, siimilarly 2 and 3 were swapped). If we deployed in the order Wall...1...2...3...4...[5]...[6]...??? I think we'd be fine (which is what was intended, but not what happened).

that's just not how they are planned currently (and it's not symmetrical to just allow us to flip it), which is why I created this ticket so that we could change the plan to something like you described which would work.

David Lang

owendelong commented 1 year ago

What I described WAS the plan all along.

Even if not symmetrical, it was still SUPPOSED to be Wall…1…2…3…4… etc.

With A near the street and C near the Theater.

Owen

On Sep 12, 2023, at 23:59, David Lang @.***> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, Owen DeLong wrote:

The real issue was deploying the switches in the incorrect order (Row 1 switches got deployed in row 4 and vice versa, siimilarly 2 and 3 were swapped). If we deployed in the order Wall...1...2...3...4...[5]...[6]...??? I think we'd be fine (which is what was intended, but not what happened).

that's just not how they are planned currently (and it's not symmetrical to just allow us to flip it), which is why I created this ticket so that we could change the plan to something like you described which would work.

David Lang — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/socallinuxexpo/scale-network/issues/564#issuecomment-1717056794, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAK6GTSCN4NFAY3BSYFD5FDX2FKWPANCNFSM6AAAAAAVV2QH3E. You are receiving this because you commented.