The 6-Month Build Log: What's Next for the Catalog and the Blog

The Build Log has been running for about six months and roughly three dozen posts. That is enough of a sample to say something useful about what small-business IT people actually come here for, which posts get read and then acted on, and where the catalog has gaps that keep showing up in support email. This post is the roundup and the roadmap — what we learned, what changes, and what deliberately does not.

The short version: the deployment-oriented posts outperform the opinion posts by a wide margin, mini PC and modem mounting drives more real demand than the network-gear content that gets more traffic, and the single most requested thing is not a product at all. It is dimensional data.

What six months of posts actually told us

We tag every post with an audience — homelab or SMB IT — and a rough topic cluster, and we can see which posts precede a catalog order. A few patterns held consistently.

Device-specific posts beat category posts. A post naming an actual chassis, with actual dimensions and an actual mounting approach, does substantially more work than a post about mounting mini PCs in general. This is not surprising in retrospect — someone with a Lenovo ThinkCentre M720q in their hand is searching for that string, not for "small form factor computer." What was surprising is the size of the gap. Named-device posts drove several times the downstream catalog activity of the equivalent general post.

Mini PC and endpoint mounting outsold network gear. Network posts get read more. Mini PC, NUC-class, and Apple-adjacent hardware posts convert more. The mini-workstation and small-PC category has been the single largest source of catalog demand over the last quarter, ahead of the UniFi content that makes up a bigger share of the published archive. That is a coverage mismatch and it is the main thing changing below.

The ISP modem content punched above its weight. Posts about mounting the box the carrier gave you — the Arris, Calix, and similar units nobody chose and everybody has to house — produced a steady stream of orders relative to how little we had written about them. For SMB deployments in particular, the carrier device is the one piece of a closet that cannot be swapped for something rack-friendly, so it stays a problem indefinitely.

Standards posts do not convert and are staying anyway. The labelling, heat-load, and fastener posts drive almost no direct catalog activity. They also get referenced, linked, and returned to. We are keeping them, and we are going to write more of them, on the grounds that a blog that only exists to sell mounts is not one anyone bookmarks.

What SMB readers ask that we have not answered well

Support email skews differently than search traffic. The recurring questions from small-business IT and MSP readers, in rough order of frequency:

• "Will this fit behind a 400 mm door?" Depth clearance, over and over. Almost nobody asks about width — 10-inch cabinets give you roughly 254 mm outer and 220–235 mm usable, and that is either enough or it obviously is not. Depth is where deployments fail, because the advertised cabinet depth is the frame and the usable figure after rails and door hardware is 40–60 mm less.
• "How many of these can I stack before it cooks?" Thermal density, particularly in wall cabinets in closets with no dedicated ventilation. Every watt is 3.412 BTU/hr, and a four-device closet drawing 200 W is putting roughly 680 BTU/hr into a space that frequently has no path out.
• "Can I get this in a version that leaves the front ports accessible?" A mounting geometry question we have been answering ad hoc per SKU instead of documenting as a general design principle.
• "What do I tell the client about a printed part?" Procurement pushback on 3D-printed hardware in a paid deployment. We wrote one post on this. It was not enough.

None of these are exotic. All of them are things a spec table would answer faster than a paragraph.

What changes in the catalog

Three concrete directions for the next quarter.

Deeper coverage of small-PC and NUC-class chassis

This is where demand is and where the catalog is thinnest relative to that demand. The work is unglamorous: each chassis family needs its own dimensional survey, because vendors change footprints between generations without changing the product name. A mini workstation chassis that was 196 mm deep in one generation may be 205 mm in the next, which is inside the tolerance that decides whether a mount holds the device square. Expect steady additions in this category rather than a single launch.

Carrier and ISP equipment

The modem category stays a priority because the constraint is structural — you do not get to choose the hardware, and the vendor has no incentive to make it rack-friendly. Vertical-orientation units with bottom vents are the hard case, since laying them flat to fit a 1U or 2U slot defeats the thermal design the vendor assumed. The approach we are standardizing on is preserving the intended orientation inside the rack envelope rather than reorienting the device, which costs rack units but does not cost you the device.

Published dimensional data for every SKU

This is the change that should have happened already. Every mount gets a published spec block: rack format, height in U and in mm (1U being 44.45 mm under EIA-310-D, 2U being 88.9 mm), required clear depth behind the rail plane, device envelope it accepts, and fastener pattern. The "will it fit" question should be answerable from the product page in fifteen seconds without an email.

What changes on the blog

The editorial mix shifts toward the two formats that demonstrably do work for the SMB audience.

More spec-sheet posts. The build-a-closet-for-this-budget format, with an actual bill of materials, actual U-count accounting, and actual power and thermal totals. These are more work to write and they are what an MSP can hand to a client.

More deployment checklists. Not "here is how racks work," but the pre-install measurement list, the fastener inventory, the labelling scheme to agree on before anyone terminates a cable. Short, structural, reusable across sites.

Fewer opinion pieces. The "is X still worth it in 2026" format performs adequately for homelab readers and poorly for SMB ones, which makes sense — an MSP is not usually deciding whether to keep hardware sentimentally, they are deciding what to spec on the next quote. We will keep writing them for the homelab side and stop pointing them at SMB readers.

Continued standards coverage. Heat load, PoE budgeting, fastener compatibility, cable bend radius, labelling. These are the posts people send to colleagues. On PoE specifically, we will keep restating the numbers that get misquoted: 802.3af allocates 15.4 W per port and delivers 12.95 W at the device, 802.3at allocates 30 W and delivers 25.5 W, 802.3bt Type 3 allocates 60 W and delivers 51 W, Type 4 allocates 90 W and delivers 71.3 W. The difference is cable loss and it is not negotiable, which is why switch PoE budgets run out earlier than people plan for.

What we are not going to do

A few things that get suggested and that we are declining, so the reasoning is on record.

We are not moving into 19-inch enclosures. The 10-inch format is the underserved one. 19-inch gear generally arrives with vendor rails or has a mature aftermarket. The half-width world is where a device ships with rubber feet and a shrug.

We are not going to publish universal mounts. An adjustable mount that accepts a range of chassis sizes accepts none of them well. The whole value of a device-specific mount is that it constrains the chassis in all six degrees of freedom without straps. Adjustability trades that away for catalog convenience.

We are not going to stop saying parts are printed. It comes up in procurement conversations and the honest framing works better than the vague one: an additively manufactured mount in PETG or ASA, in a conditioned closet below roughly 50 °C, carrying a static load of a few kilograms with no vibration, is operating far inside its material limits. It is not a structural part. It is a fixture holding a light object still. Saying so plainly has been more persuasive than avoiding the topic.

How to get what you need faster

Two practical requests for readers deploying this stuff professionally.

First, if a device you deploy repeatedly has no mount in the catalog, the useful thing to send is the model number and a rough depth measurement — not a photo. Model numbers get us to the dimensional survey; depth tells us whether it is a 1U or 2U problem before we start.

Second, when a fit question comes up, measure clear depth behind the rail plane rather than trusting the cabinet's advertised depth. That number, plus the model, answers most compatibility questions in one exchange instead of four.

Wrap-up

Six months in, the pattern is clear enough to act on: specificity wins, endpoint hardware drives more demand than network hardware, and the questions that actually block a deployment are dimensional rather than conceptual. The next quarter is mostly about closing the gap between where the catalog is deep and where the demand is — plus publishing the spec data that should have been on every product page from the start.

Building something like this? Browse our most popular mounts — every one is designed, printed, and test-fitted here.