Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Actual CPU Energy Use Statistics Published

Posted by Zonk on from the stats-for-science dept.

BBCWatcher writes "CNN is reporting that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in August asked server manufacturers to develop 'miles per gallon' ratings for their equipment that would provide accurate assessments of energy efficiency. IBM says it is now providing 'typical usage ratings' for its line of z9 mainframe computers, in addition to previously available maximum power ratings. More than 1,000 z9s around the world started reporting (with the owners' permission) on May 11th their actual installed power and cooling demands, so IBM can publish statistics such as how much energy is required to turn on an additional processor to run multiple Linux virtual servers. The answer? About 20 total watts. 'Over time every vendor is going to be asked to provide typical energy use numbers for their equipment. It's what the EPA wants, and this allows us to move beyond simple performance benchmarking to energy benchmarking.'"

5 of 103 comments (clear)

  1. The first one though... by pigiron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sure it's true that adding additional virtual servers is only 20 watts. But that first one is a real whopper!

  2. Tax benefit by slackoon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The government gives tax benefits for driving hybrid vehicles and I believe they should do it for energy efficient computers as well. "According to the Computer Industry Almanac Web site, at the end of the year 2000, there were 168.84 million computers in use. The projection for the end of 2001 is 182.24 million." So just imagine how many there are now! With that many computers, many of which are never turned off, the energy savings could be enormous.

    1. Re:Tax benefit by Yartrebo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not having a computer is better in terms of energy demand than even having a very efficient computer. Same for the hybrid car. For this reason I find these tax breaks perverse.

      Giving tax breaks for efficient items penalizes those who conserve the most by not even having the item or by using less. A business that invests money into writing more efficient software and using less servers should not be penalized vis-a-vis a business that invests the money into more efficient servers.

  3. Re:damn lies by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh, but there are so many ways to play with statistics All the more reason to understand how they work.
    --
    Deleted
  4. Re:Nice to get a watt/CPU by An+dochasac · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While it's a baby step in the right direction, Watts alone as a "benchmark" is meaningless as is Watts/CPU. The VIC-20 likely beat the Z9 back in 1980.

    If IBM is serious about server energy consumption, they should publish statistics using the SWaP (Space Watts and Performance) benchmark Sun has been promoting for several years or even "MFLOPS/Watt" or "Page serves/second/Watt" If the Z9 can handle a typical highly threaded webserver load with fewer watts than something like Sun's T2000 Niagara while providing identical performance, IBM shouldn't be afraid to prove it.

    Until then, I'll assume it's just another useless benchmark configured specifically to make IBM's products look better than its competitors.