Slashdot Mirror


Green buildings, Green Server Farms?

mstansberry writes "Has IT evolved to the point where it can consider energy efficiency without sacrificing uptime or performance? According to an interview with APC's Richard Sawyer, the answer is yes. The green buildings movement, spearheaded by the USGBC and other organizations has some people thinking about computing infrastructure's impact on the environment. Is it an IT issue or something from C-level executives?"

30 of 263 comments (clear)

  1. But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Last time I checked my computer was a box full of toxic chemicals

    1. Re:But by Politburo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, so because computers contain some toxic substances that are not emitted to the air or ground during normal use, that means we shouldn't attempt to mitigate the environmental impact computer use?

      +5, Insightful, but only if you're a simple-minded idiot.

  2. Considering mac mini's take less power than cpus by guildsolutions · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Considering my mac mini takes less power than just my AMD cpu, let alone not talking about the video card, etc... Im really wondering if the push for massive cpu power at the cost of extreme electrical usage is really worth it.

    Green everything should be a good thing, but what if the cost of green than reclamation and regeneration?

  3. Power is a big issue by btempleton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even without environmental questions. CPUs have been getting faster and faster per dollar you spend on them, but they haven not been getting faster the same way per _watt_ you put into them. And each watt put into them also costs power to cool them.

    This applies even in the home. Here in California, land of the 14 cent kwh, a 100 watt PC running 24/7 costs $120 per year in power. In a 3 year life the power is more expensive than the CPU or any other major component except perhaps the monitor, sometimes more expensive than the whole PC.

    This also plays big on ideas like getting an old computer and putting linux on it to act as a router or music player or other special functions. You are much better off buying a dedicated box like a WRT54G than making use of the "free" old hardware.

    And yes, this does have environmental issues, but you can see the problem right away just by looking at costs.

    --
    Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
    1. Re:Power is a big issue by Shalda · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think you've hit the issue right on the head. Your average data-center manager could not care less about whether his server farm is environmentally friendly or not. On the other hand, electricity is a major expense. A dozen racks of 1U servers pulling 100-200 watts each will probably run you upwards of $80k/year. And that doesn't even include the cost of cooling your server room (which will add another $20k or so). Server consolidations and energy efficient servers save money. And that will always be your driving force. If company A says they have a "green" server room, it's just marketing. Their first concern and only concern is the bottom line.

      On the other hand, I live in Minnesota, and 5 months of the year, we can use that server energy to heat the rest of the building. :)

  4. 8am, Day 1: STOP THE WASTE by toby · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Most server hardware is massively overspecified. 90% of websites could run on a 486 and nobody would notice a difference - assuming, of course, that you are running a sane, frugal (UNIX family) O/S.

    Make enormous energy savings simply by consolidating services...

    Stop buying new servers and extend the lifetime of older ones. (Account for the energy costs of manufacture as well as running costs.)

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:8am, Day 1: STOP THE WASTE by Radix37 · · Score: 3, Funny
      90% of websites could run on a 486 and nobody would notice a difference

      Until Slashdot strikes...

      --
      Speed Demos Archive - Lots of speed runs!
  5. My server farm... by Bananatree3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Would be racks and racks of laptops! No need to by expensive low-power servers, just pump money into high-end laptops that already run low on power. And the best thing is, I don't have to pay for APC's, as they all come with batteries!

    1. Re:My server farm... by SuperBanana · · Score: 3, Informative
      And the best thing is, I don't have to pay for APC's, as they all come with batteries!

      They do, but my experience with laptops (particularly old laptops) has been that their battery capacity gauges don't like being left on A/C power for a couple of months; either the battery gets discharged, or the chip thinks the battery has no capacity left, and instead of going on battery power when the A/C shuts off.

      PS: they're Uninterruptable Power Supplies. Not "APCs". Those are Armored Personnel Carriers.

  6. Interview? by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Interview?" More like, "opportunity to mention APC's UPS efficiency and then yack about how important that is."

    Somewhere, APC's PR firm is quite pleased.

  7. Virtualization is the answer by gtrubetskoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We wrote about the environmental benefits of virtualization on our site a while back. I even started a little thread on Nanog about any numbers on relationship of server utilization and the energy cost, but it looked like few people cared. To see how underutilized your Linux server is, do:

    # cat /proc/uptime
    1122029.25 1101982.75

    The first number is the system uptime in seconds, the second is the number of seconds it's been idle. The number above is from my laptop - 98% idle.

    Virtualization is also going to be the way hardware vendors will keep the server price up - suddenly very powerful servers will start making sense. The questions is - who will win - Xen, UML or Linux VServer. We're banking on VServer. :-)

    1. Re:Virtualization is the answer by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I still have to wonder what the real point of virtualizing is. Yes, Microsoft pulled an amazing coup by convincing sysadmins that they should have a separate box for every tiny little service they wanted to run. But Microsoft got away with it because of the crappy design of Windows as a server OS. (i.e. You have to plan for complete system wipes and upgrades, security is such that one service could compromise another, and system software components are such that they happily interfere with each other.)

      Back in the land of all things sane (i.e. Unix style OSes), I see no reason why NOT to run a billion services on one machine. As long as you've got spare system resources, why shouldn't you make use of them? Why do I NEED the domain controller, file server, mail server, and ftp server to all be different machines? One big Unix box does the job better, and for a lower up front (and longterm!) cost than lots of tiny Windows boxes!

      Granted, there are still some issues that can't be overcome. But which really makes more sense, spending millions of dollars on tons of machines and an army of support staff, or spending a few hundred thousand on a couple of redundant machines and an admin or two to maintain them?

  8. Why I want low power/low heat by Kainaw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I want a low power/low heat computer because I want to be able to leave it on all the time. Every PC I've had has been both a computer and a space heater. It is hot enough. I want a computer without the space heater. It isn't that I care so much about global warming. I care about the warming in my own house and all the wasted electricity I have to pay for (both in the PC and my extra AC use). The problem is that it is hard to find a low heat PC. I would like to take the motherboard I have out of the case and drop in a low-heat one. But, all I can find are extremely overpriced complete systems with the obligatory Windows pre-install.

    --
    The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
    1. Re:Why I want low power/low heat by sffubs · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you're more worried about heat than speed, something using a VIA Epia board would do the trick.

      --
      ݼ)s$æúßðíÊ'öX'îò5^àûßQç£
    2. Re:Why I want low power/low heat by j-cloth · · Score: 3, Interesting
      As was hinted at above (WRT54G), I cannot recommend enough getting a hackable appliance running an embedded linux.

      Check out the Linksys NSLU2 NAS device. It has a couple USB ports, a Netword adapter, a 266MHz ARM processor, 32MB RAM and an active community porting apps to it.

      A website running on this obviusly couldn't stand up to a slashdotting, but it will work for a personal site and does a good job of streaming media around the house (aside from its primary function as a Samba server)

      The thing draws next to no power and could easliy replace many of the space heaters wasting power in the average geek's basement.

  9. Re:"C-Level Executive"? by Quikah · · Score: 4, Informative

    CEO, CTO, CFO, etc.

    --
    Q.
  10. Re:It's the software vendors' fault by jakel2k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Umm... this is only with MS products. Most OSS software can be complied and ran on a 486. MS however adds a lot of overhead on top of what a server needs. A standard web server that is current would require at least 500MHz processor with 256Mb RAM and almost 2Gb of HDD space, (if memory recalls correctly.) Installing the newest debian, BSD, Gentoo or Slack without X, (since this is optional on these systems and a requirment for Windows,) could run on a 486, 32Mb RAM, (more is better,) and about 300Mb of HDD space.

    Of course you can install an older version of Windows to save on hardware requirements but you end up sacrificing security updates. Why do that?

  11. toxic chemicals.. by PopeAlien · · Score: 4, Funny

    Last time I checked my computer was a box full of toxic chemicals

    Ah! but what color are these chemicals?

  12. Who still runs 100-watt computers? by Yankel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Okay, maybe me.

    However, these new |337 modded overclocked mega-boxes with a zillion fans, accelerator cards, lighting, speaker systems, external super-spinning hard drives and 300-watt power supplies use a tad more fuel than that.

    I'd guess that with a CRT monitor, you're looking at an annual cost of at least twice that for a standard-vanilla (non modded) desktop, and the mods go up from there.

    I agree with the post about using laptop parts, and if I'm correct, that's what some manufacturers are starting to do. They're a bit more expensive, but far more energy efficient.

    --
    --- Dan
    1. Re:Who still runs 100-watt computers? by Cecil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My computers can make even a 250-watt powersupply catch fire (Panic and terror ensued, but the system survived)

      They're all relatively green though, because I pay extra to my local utility to have them put enough power from wind farms onto the grid to power my home. It's a different solution perhaps, but everyone has different needs.

      And I know what some of you want to say, so let me pre-empt you: Yes I know that my computers are powered by minced bird guts (B.S.) and weather pattern destruction (prove it)! Ha ha ha! I don't care. It's better than coal or gas or oil, so bite me, ok? Until direct solar energy becomes feasable, it's among the best solutions we've got.

  13. Server power consumption is way too big by Animats · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Server software technology keeps getting worse, as .NET, J2EE, Perl, PHP, Flash etc. are deployed for pages that could just as well be static. How many barrels of oil per day go into "ad personalization"?

  14. Move the servers by G4from128k · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For many applications, the location of the server is not that important. Servers could be relocated to a cooler climate (avoiding the overhead of air-conditioning) or to an area of lower-cost electricity (e.g., Norway has aluminum smelters that take advantage of low-cost hydropower). At the very least, the server could be collocated at a nearby power plant to reduce transmission losses. One could also look into cogeneration -- using the heat of the server to warm water that is then used for another industrial process.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  15. Low-power shopping list by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 4, Informative

    1) Seasonic S12 series high-efficiency power supply. It makes a VERY noticible difference.
    2) Athlon 64 CPU (preferably the new Venice or San Diego core) and Socket 939 motherboard. Enable PowerNOW! power management (current Linux distros like FC3 support it automagically, some BIOSes don't enable it by default). The CPU runs at 800MHz at 1.1V core while idle, jumping to full speed as needed (just like a notebook). Even at full speed power consumption is about half that of an Intel P4 blast furnace. Run 64-bit Linux and get even more work done per watt.
    3) Avoid high-wattage video cards like the GeForce 6800 series in favor of 6600GT's. MASSIVE power consumption difference. Depending on how hard-core a gamer you are, the 6600GT's are good enough and a lot cheaper.

    See Newegg, etc for the parts.

  16. Green Web Hosting Services by Guano_Jim · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you're not interested in running your own alternative-energy IT setup, you can always outsource it:

    Solar Hosting uses renewables (i.e. solar, hence the name) to power all their web servers.

    Looks like they offer a complete solution package, from web design to hosting.

  17. Web hosting is a bad example by leoc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Because they are already there. In fact I'd say 90% of all web sites out there are already running on less than the power of a 486 today. All 3 of my extremely low-volume web sites, for example, are not even running on real hardware. They are all virtually hosted along with hundreds of other sites on a single high power box. Web hosting companies operate on such a slim margin these days that they are the first to take advantage of any technology that saves energy.

    --
    STFU about slashdot bias.
  18. C was their GPA by Kyont · · Score: 3, Insightful

    C is for Chief, as in Chief Information Officer, Chief Executive Office, etc.

    In America, it also refers to the grade-point average they barely managed to maintain while drinking their way through college and bonding with their frat brothers' dads so they could get hired onto corporate management tracks at age 23 so they could schmooze their way up to officer-level positions by age 46 and make outrageous salaries "providing leadership" for the rest of us and offering cushy internships to their sons' marginally-literate frat brothers. Not that I'm bitter.

    --
    You shall see a cow on the roof of a cotton house.
  19. Re:Considering mac mini's take less power than cpu by bfizzle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Use a laptop then. The conversion is done on the power strip. Take out the battery and just run off your custom solar power supply then no lossy conversion and you don't have to alter a power supply.

  20. Overkill is still overkill by Mr+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

    You must be out of touch if you think the vast majority of people use that much power all the time.

    PSU Needs Calculator

    Using this calculator, a sample system I just made up only needed 319 watts of peak power. To get that, I needed to be running the 3gig barton chip, 2 sticks of ram, 2 hard drives, a Radeon X800, sound, NIC, with 3 fans fullblast and 2 cathode tubes, and a dvd player. Keep in mind that's PEAK power required, which means all of that has to be going top speed to get there, which means something along the lines of running 3D mark while copying a dvd from one drive to the other while playing sound while downloading a file over the internet while having all your fans and lights cranked up.

    Hate to break it to you, bud, but just cause you have it doesn't mean you are using it.

  21. Re:Considering mac mini's take less power than cpu by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My pocketbook.

    Solar power systems aren't cheap. Hopefully at least one of the ongoing research projects into organic solar systems will fix this. :) I especially like nanosolar's approach (taking an orderly molecular matrix and using it as a template for insertion of molecules at proper spacing for efficient solar power generation), although we'll have to see if they can pull it off in bulk.

    --
    Freeze Ray. Tell your friends.
  22. Solar power by falconwolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The mini reminds me of a friend who used an old 68k macintosh as a webserver. her desktop was plugged into mains power but the little web server only used 17w of power to run all day every day, and was on a solar power setup with battery backup. last time I heard from her it had gone down from lack of power only twice in a year.

    There's a hosting company that runs on solar power, Solar Host.

    Falcon