10 IT Power-Saving Myths Debunked

snydeq writes "InfoWorld examines 10 power-saving assumptions IT has been operating under in its quest to rein in energy costs vs. the permanent energy crisis. Under scrutiny, most such assumptions wither. From true CPU efficiency, to the life span effect of power-down frequency on servers, to SSD power consumption, to switching to DC in the datacenter, get the facts before setting your IT energy strategy."

Comments

I dunno..

[Anrego]

I'm of the school that thinks "debunking" involves some kind of comprehensive stats or numbers or evidence weight against strongly held opinions.

This article is basically a verbose version of the "nuh uh" argument.

It's not a bad article.. but I would hardly call this "debunking".

And I totally disagree on point #2 .. maybe having _all_ your extra servers always on is bad.. but if load peaks there is no _way_ someone should be waiting while a system boots.

Re:I dunno..

[ShieldW0lf]

I've got electric heat, and I've got a pile of servers in my spare bedroom, and I never need to turn on the electric heat, because the servers heat my home.

Which looks to me like an opportunity. People pay for heat. So, put the servers where people need heat, and suddenly a liability is a resource.

Apartment buildings, office buildings and malls in cold climates should all be prime locations for a datacenter.

Re:I dunno..

[Nursie]

Think past "HA" for a second.

Think about metrics, predictable traffic and planned capacity.

Think about bringing a percentage of spare capacity online at any one time, in line with predicted peak traffic, and more as the load increases on what's there already.

HA can still be HA without needing everything on all the time.

(also, why the hell was my last post modded down as redundant?)

Re:I dunno..

[Lord Apathy]

There is also more bullshit in that statement than meets the eye. Power cycling a system can cause failure if you have cheap soldering or marginal parts. Powering up a system causes it to heat up, things expand when they heat up. If you have a solder joint that isn't done right the expanding and contracting will cause it to break eventually. I've actually seen surface mounted parts fall off a board because of shotty soldering.

Yeah, true the real problem was shotty soldering but the heating cycles helped it along.

Re:I dunno..

[TheRaven64]

Take a look at the proceedings from the International Conference on Autonomic Computing for the last few years, and you will see papers from universities and companies like Intel and HP describing efficient ways of doing exactly this.

Re:Sleep != Hibernate

[EvilRyry]

Using my handy killawatt, I tested how much power my desktop (not including accessories) draws while off, on and idle, on and under load, and in S3 suspend.

Off - 6 watts
Idle - 140W (dropped from 152W after installing a tickless kernel)
Loaded - 220W
S3 - 8 watts

Ever since I ran that test, I put my machine into suspend at every opportunity. 140W is a lot of juice in the land of $0.18/kWh.

Re:Sleep != Hibernate

[Volante3192]

My kingdom for a mod point...

I built a new system in July, Intel Core2Duo E8400, 2gb ram, ATI 3850, two hds (one's a raptor), and the box on idle pulls 81W.

My old box, an Athlon 1800+ (actual speed: 1350hz), 2gb ram, two HDs...idle was in the 130s 140s.

(Both are excluding monitor, a 20" LCD with pulls 35-40W)

So not only did I build me a faster system, it's nearly half as power hungry as my old box.

Sod NFS

[Colin Smith]

Sorry, It's just not worth the pain. Boot to RAM.

You just set high and low load thresholds for server on/off. And a load balancer which simply adds the new server to the server pool when it notices it's there, removes them when it's gone. So no need to try to predict stuff.

5 seconds or 3 minutes, the server boot times are largely irrelevant. If you think you're going to handle a slashdotting you are mistaken, you can't handle oneoff events this way. You would have to go from 1 to 100 servers and connections in 5 seconds.

What it can do is grow really quickly if a service becomes very popular very quickly, or reduce your datacenter costs if it's typically used only 9-5. Or even, dual purpose processing. Servers do X from 9-17 and Y from 15-20.

 

Feeling it in the 1 Watt

[Doc Ruby]

That list of myths debunked seems pretty sensible, even in details that run counter to conventional wisdom. But even though the list properly cautions several times against how most any equipment left plugged in will still drain power while doing nothing useful (infinitely bad efficiency), the article still makes an inefficienty mistake:

Sleeping continues to draw a small amount of power, between 1 and 3 watts, even though the system appears to be inactive. By comparison, Suspend draws less than 1 watt. Even over the course of a year, this difference is probably negligible.

Over the course of a year, 2 unnecessary watts is 17.532 unnecessary KWh. Sure, that's only about $1.75 at about $0.10:KWh. But that's for each device. At home, in addition to sleeping computers, there's dozens of devices with AC adapters wasting watts most of the day (and night), which is possibly hundreds of dollars wasted. In offices and datacenters, possibly thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year wasted. And each KWh means loads of extra Greenhouse CO2 unnecessarily pumped into the sky, even if it's (still) cheap to so recklessly pollute.

Which is what the One Watt Initiative is designed to minimize. The US government has joined the global efficiency organization, mandating purchases of equipment that consumes no more than 1 watt in standby mode. Whatever the global impact of 3W wasted in standby can be cut by 2/3 if switching to 1W.

In the short run, that makes energy bills lower (and, by saving heat from standby devices, further lowers energy costs due to less required cooling). In the long run, we've got more fuel and intact climate left to work with - and that stuff just costs way too much to replace when it runs out.

Re:Some things conveniently left out

[Just Some Guy]

This is one of those commonly held beliefs that has absolutely no facts behind it.

The data sheet for my Hitachi HDS721075KLA330 drive rates it at 50,000 load/unload cycles. If it powered up 50 times a day (which would be quite possible in a desktop with aggressive power savings enabled), it's specced to last about 3 years.

From a mechanical standpoint, this belief also does not make any sense.

The people who actually built it seem to disagree with you. Hint: a spinning hard drive takes little energy to stay in motion. A stopped hard drive takes quite a bit of torque to spin up to running speed in a small number of seconds.