Received: from PCH.mit.edu (18.7.21.50) by mail.efplus.com (192.168.0.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.485.1; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 04:17:18 -0700 Received: from PCH.MIT.EDU (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by PCH.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.8) with ESMTP id 16FB6RnZ028338; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 07:07:29 -0400 Received: from outgoing-exchange-3.mit.edu (OUTGOING-EXCHANGE-3.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.13]) by PCH.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.8) with ESMTP id 16FB6QDX028332 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 07:06:26 -0400 Received: from w92exedge3.exchange.mit.edu (W92EXEDGE3.EXCHANGE.MIT.EDU [18.7.73.15]) by outgoing-exchange-3.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 16FB6PII007264 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 07:06:25 -0400 Received: from w92expo8.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.74.62) by w92exedge3.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.73.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.23; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 07:06:25 -0400 Received: from w92exhyb6.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.71.111) by w92expo8.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.74.62) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 07:06:25 -0400 Received: from NAM10-MW2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (104.47.55.106) by w92exhyb6.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.71.111) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.18 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 07:06:25 -0400 Received: from BN0PR02CA0037.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:408:e5::12) by BYAPR01MB4647.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:10b6:a03:8a::17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4308.25; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:06:23 +0000 Received: from BN8NAM11FT004.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com (2603:10b6:408:e5:cafe::11) by BN0PR02CA0037.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:408:e5::12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4331.21 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:06:23 +0000 Received: from sonic302-23.consmr.mail.ir2.yahoo.com (87.248.110.86) by BN8NAM11FT004.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.13.176.164) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4331.21 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:06:23 +0000 Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic302.consmr.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with HTTP; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:06:22 +0000 Received: by kubenode536.mail-prod1.omega.ir2.yahoo.com (VZM Hermes SMTP Server) with ESMTPA ID 59c3fe527edae0093a01ec17dce18cb5; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:06:18 +0000 (UTC) From: "charles.99@sky.com" To: 'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.' Sender: "piclist-bounces@mit.edu" Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 04:06:19 -0700 Subject: RE: [EE] Redundant PSU for critical NAS server Thread-Topic: [EE] Redundant PSU for critical NAS server Thread-Index: AQHxBt28Nvgbw/+9joaNhLjArz3PaqsQxQ2Q Message-ID: <005e01d77969$70981120$51c83360$@sky.com> References: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , In-Reply-To: Reply-To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-GB X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: TS500.efplus4.local X-MS-Has-Attach: X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SenderIdResult: Pass X-MS-Exchange-Organization-PRD: mit.edu X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: received-spf: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of sky.com designates 87.248.110.86 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com; client-ip=87.248.110.86; helo=sonic302-23.consmr.mail.ir2.yahoo.com; dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sky.com; s=s1024; t=1626347182; bh=MqW4xYBRqpL1VXF1EUUVYED31m23Lr1v3rTyjDqUFoY=; h=From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:From:Subject:Reply-To; b=ovfyQj9e3smxhiqNL0vcXuLaq/I8kBMs74YaTqR1816oBARZGJ1L5ui3VPuEI5BgiG7jEvqbU3YrYCGy7oLw7PScOYsD5b8N8XBXNOov1LTMncK/k/wX3OmQmLH1zE1gVYev+QfaheCNm/1j3wtbJV16OEk71Ba03OZJfg6X1iM= authentication-results: spf=pass (sender IP is 87.248.110.86) smtp.mailfrom=sky.com; mit.edu; dkim=pass (signature was verified) header.d=sky.com;mit.edu; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=sky.com; errors-to: piclist-bounces@mit.edu list-id: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." list-post: x-beenthere: piclist@mit.edu x-mailman-version: 2.1.6 x-topics: [EE] x-mime-autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by PCH.mit.edu id 16FB6QDX028332 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 I'm no expert, but if the 2 supplies are adjustable, I'd set it so each sup= ply gave around 50% of the load. As both are under run, reliability should be improved. If one fails the other assumes 100% of the load, but that would happen anyw= ay in your scheme. Just a thought, Charles -----Original Message----- From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu On Behalf Of foros@= arocholl.com Sent: 12 July 2021 15:13 To: piclist@mit.edu Subject: [EE] Redundant PSU for critical NAS server Hi there, Over the last couple of years have experienced problems with PSU failing an= d shutting down connected NAS servers, twice. These PSUs are 12v/100W exter= nal units from the manufacturer (Synology). The funniest thing is the PSUs = are fully protected with 220v UPS but of course nothing helps if they fail = themselves, and they do, without any advice... Not a good setup for a criti= cal server. So I rather no longer rely on the manufacturer PSU and design my own, overr= ated 12v/200W redundant supply. My current thinking is to proceed like this= : * Have two identical 12v PSU adjusted to different DC levels (12.6v and 12.2v) each one connected to a pair of schottky diodes (2x parallel 15V 9A = 95SQ015 I have spare) so one PSU is the active one and the second PSU is ru= nning ready but passive. * In theory if the active PSU fails, the passive one becomes active and dio= des prevent anything funny from happening. [Active PSU 12.6v] -> 2x Parallel Diode -> Joint [Passive PSU 12.2v] -> 2x= Parallel Diode -> Joint -> NAS server I've been testing this setup and the diodes get barely warm so everything l= ooks kosher to move to production. I also tested the active/passive -> dead= /active scenario with some alternative charge but don't want to risk the ac= tual server with a full charge test. So I wanted to check if you have been there already and found a better setu= p, or if this approach may have an obvious issue I currently do not see. Regards, Ariel --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .