EPA Sends Data Center Power Study to Congress

BDPrime writes "We've all been hearing ad nauseum about power and cooling issues in the data center. Now the EPA has issued a final report to Congress detailing the problem and what might be done to fix it. Most likely what will happen is the EPA will add servers and data centers into its Energy Star program. If you don't feel like reading the entire 133-page report, the 14-page executive summary is a little easier to get through."

Comments

Simple Solution

[evilviper]

I've long been dumbfounded by the way datacenters charge. They seemingly all charge a hell of a lot for physical space, and then almost completely ignore power requirements. This seems incredibly strange, since datacenter operating costs are pretty much tied directly to power consumption (monthly electricity fees, UPSes, electrical generators, cooling, etc.), and only incidentally to physical space.

Further, the cost to handle each extra watt is multiplied thanks to cooling, power back-up, wiring, etc., while increasing the physical size of the building, constructing more datacenters, etc. is just a flat (linear) cost, and mostly just a one-time expenditure at that.

This strange arrangement is what has led us here. It's not the natural evolution of technology to cram as much power consumption into as tiny a box as possible. It's an artificial need, created by the idiotic distribution of fees common to datacenters.

If a few large datacenters declared their fees as a small $$$ value for each unit of space, and additionally a few dollars, per watt of power consumption, you'd see the problem naturally fix itself, through normal economic forces. As soon as watts are the defining factor, companies won't pay more for a cramped 1U server rather than an (inexpensive) 2U or 3U server. You will also see companies happy to pay more for lower-powered server hardware, as having them directly bear the energy cost will make buying efficient servers a significant savings to them.

Re:Simple Solution

[Nezer]

It probably would cost to much to bother reporting on...

Because when you run a multi-million dollar data center, you clearly can't afford install a few-hundred dollar device in each customer's rack especially if it's a major part of how you bill your customer.

Look, the power companies do exactly what the parent poster suggests. Imagine if power companies charged a flat rate each month based on the square footage of your house. There would no incentive (unless your a save-the-planet hippie type which isn't a bad thing) to turn up the setting on the air conditioner (or turn it off all together), keep incandescent lights running 24/7 along with the giant plasma TV. This is essentially how data centers operate today. There is no motivation to have energy efficient servers unless you're the one that owns the data center and pays the power bill. Today the best a data center owner can do is invest in more efficient cooling systems and that's about it.

Re:Great scott!

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

$740 million? That's like 4.2 days of the Iraq war!
($177M/day for Iraq http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nat ion/president/2004-08-26-iraq-war-clock_x.htm

That sounds like a big number, and is for most of us, but not for the Federal government. About 29 cents more in taxes off each paycheck (assuming 100 M taxpayers, and paychecks every 2 weeks).

There are much bigger fish to fry.

Also, there is only so much one can cut the energy use, and thus that cost down, and still get the business of the government done. And the improvements in efficiency will require hardware, software, and personnel which have their own costs. Eventually you will hit a point where there is no longer a return on investment to make it worthwhile.