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."
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.
Myth No. 6: A notebook doesn't use any power when it's suspended or sleeping. USB devices charge from the notebook's AC adapter. Fact: Sleep (in Vista) or Hibernate mode in XP saves the state of the system to RAM and then maintains the RAM image even though the rest of the system is powered down. Suspend saves the state of the system to hard disk, which reduces the boot time greatly and allows the system to be shut down. 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.
um... Hibernate != Sleep. Hibernate in XP saves the RAM to the Hard Drive, and powers off. Suspend keeps RAM powered....
The above comments are not guaranteed to make sense to anyone other than the author...
I lock my PC at the evening and turn off my monitor. Shutting down takes 5 minutes. Starting up takes 15 minutes. Just checked those time this morning to talk about it to IT. This does not include logging into the remote system with Citrix that takes another 10 minutes.
So the company has a choice.
1) Pay me (and everybody else in the company) 20 minutes
2) Pay the electricity for not turning of the PC
3) Find a solution that makes it possible to do all of this faster.
Oh. The only reason we use Citrix is to run Outlook in it.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Myth No. 3: The power rating (in watts) of a CPU is a simple measurement of the system's efficiency.
Fact: Efficiency is measured in percentage of power converted, which can range from 50 to 90 percent or more. The AC power not converted to DC is lost as heat...Unfortunately, it's often difficult to tell the efficiency of a power supply, and many manufacturers don't publish the number.
I'm not sold on taking advice who doesn't understand the difference between the wattage rating of a CPU and the wattage rating of the power supply. They're completely different components.
Sorry for the thread hijack, but I decided to post this link as soon as I saw the links to all 4 pages of the top 10 list.
http://www.infoworld.com/archives/emailPrint.jsp?R=printThis&A=/article/08/10/06/40TC-power-myths_1.html
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Taking ten suppositions and making suppositions about those suppositions (I'm getting dizzy) is not debunking. All I see here is lots of questionable, completely unattributed information. For example: "The average 17-inch LCD monitor consumes 35 watts of electricity". Really? Where did this information come from? Did you pull this information from the glossy for a 17" monitor? Did you just test your monitor? Did you test a large sample of monitor's here? Did you pull this information from a study? Out of your ass?
Show them some nice pictures of kittens. Or some pr0n.
I, for one, was very relieved to see the word or.
This comment is for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to real insight or information is purely coincidental.
We have a similar problem here that I've not been allowed to fix yet.
The employees typically turn on their computers and then LEAVE THE OFFICE to get Starbucks coffee or whatever. A 10 minute wait turns into 30 minutes of non-productivity.
The computers should be the same as the phones. Instant on - any time - every time.
Turning off your computer is always a good time to give the hamsters food and water, lets them rest, so in the morning your computer will be nice and fast. If it takes parents computer 15 minutes, his hamster need less weight
Go go Gadget Nailgun!
Did the definitions of 'fact' and 'debunk' change recently? Every 'myth' listed has 'fact' under it proving it is true. According to my good friend Mr. Webster this is called 'confirmation.'
... something like monitoring system usage and bringing additional boxes up when usage hits something like 80%?
And then suspending boxes when usage drops down to 10%?
All in all, trying to maintain a level 50% utilization level? Maybe with the utilization level setting being an option that the sysadmin could change?
I'd recommend you patent that idea.
Myth #2 suggests making your customers wait. That might work in super-mega-corporate land where your customers are literally married to you and queues in Tech Support are "profitable."
I would *deserve* to be fired if I made a customer wait. Of course, that sense of urgency doesn't work in super-mega-corporate entities either.
The myth about going to DC to be more efficient is painful too. If a manager in a workplace would entertain a crackpot ideas like that, I'd leave.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Do you have any data on this? This is one of those commonly held beliefs that has absolutely no facts behind it. I've seen a google whitepaper that pretty conclusively debunked commonly held assumptions that drives fail because of temperature and "wear and tear". From a mechanical standpoint, this belief also does not make any sense. The only wear components in a hard drive are bearings on the head and spindle. Spinning down the drive should prolong their life, rather than shortening it.
My favourite story (or urban legend) is when an employee came in to an IT shop on the weekend and shut down all of the A/C cooling units for the Data Centre. He claimed that he was "going 'Green' and saving power" because "...all of those computers in that room have their own fans." I'm pretty sure he was let go after that...or promoted to management.
Never send a Monster to do the work of an Evil Scientist.
That's a really bad article. Wow, worse then anything I remember them writing before.
Out-right potentially wrong: no one cares if a customer is made to wait for a server to boot to get served. That's not a generalization to be made lightly... It is true, though, that suspend-to-ram has not received the attention it deserves in the data center. A great deal of server-class systems and options are not designed to cope with suspend-to-ram, and thus you must be careful banking on this. The industry should correct it, but a facility can't bank on it yet (just put pressure on your vendors to make it so...)
Straw-man: A supposed 'myth' that leaving on LCD monitors is fine for energy savings, with the remarkable clarification that being off saves more power... Who would have thought.
Other straw-man: You will unconditionally save money by rapid upgrades to the latest efficient technology. I don't think anyone is foolish enough to think compulsively following any technical treadmill will lead to any overall financial gain..
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Probably the biggest and most annoying/disrupting power saving myth is Daylight Savings Time. Every year, the power companies announce that they don't notice any change whatsoever in power consumption.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
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.
Deleted
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:
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.
--
make install -not war
Put articles on a single web page, instead of forcing me to click through three different "Next" links in order to get through an entire article. I understand if the article is one of those 5000 word New Yorker extended expositions, but I absolutely hate this trend in turning already short articles into even shorter multi-page articles. Single-page articles save energy, as well as my attention and patience.
I saw the google whitepaper and it debunked very little about the temperature "myth", not sure about wear and tear.
With regards to tempreature the study had a couple of fundamental flaws.
* The temperature measurements came from the drives themselves. That means if say an unreliable hard drive model also underreported it's tempreature it would totally skew the results.
* It was data from servers running in a well cooled datacenter. That means there was virtually no data about drives running at the kind of tempreatures you see in a poorly ventilated desktop in a hot room.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Google developed their own power supply
Actually, Google's point was that they wanted motherboards that ran on 12 VDC only. PC power supplies are still providing +12, -12, +5, -5, and +3.3v. Most of those voltages are there for legacy purposes, and DC-DC converters on the motherboard are doing further conversions anyway. So there's no reason not to make motherboards that only need 12 VDC. Disks are already 12 VDC only, so this gets everything on one voltage. This simplifies the power supply considerably, and avoids losses in producing some voltages that aren't used much.
But Google wasn't talking about using 12 VDC distribution within the data center. The busbars required would be huge at such a low voltage. They were talking about using 12 VDC within each rack. Distribution within the data center would still be 110 or 220 VAC.
Tip number seven talks about battery conservation in LiIon vs. NiCd batteries. Um, laptops haven't used NiCd's in years. Their predecessors, NiMH hasn't been used in laptops in quite a while either.
Can you even buy NiCd's anymore, for any device? I can't remember the last time I saw them in an electronics store.
SirWired
Well I live in Canada, and most people I know use electric heating...(Montreal area)
To be fair, when snowraver1 said 'Canada', I think he actually was referring to Alan Fotheringham's 'TROC'(The Rest Of Canada), i.e., the unwashed masses outside of the 401 corridor.
Here in Alberta, as in much of western TROC, it's good old natural gas.
db
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
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.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Disks are already 12 VDC only
Actually HDDs use +12v for the motors and +5v for the electronics. If you have a 3.5" FDD it only uses 5v. If you don't believe me try swapping the yellow (12v) and red (5v) wires going into the power connector on your HDD some time ... here's a hint, the smoke you see coming off the electronics isn't from putting 5v into something that expects 12v (note if you're really dumb enough to do this I won't be held responsible for ruining your HDD).
Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack perspective.