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...
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.
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.
It's possibly a combination of the two. My old work laptop (Tosh Centrino, 1.6 or 1.8GHz, 1GB RAM, Win2K) used to take around 12 minutes to boot from cold. Quite a bit of this is due to the Pointsec full disk encryption software, followed by SAV, followed by the usual corporate crippleware. Horrible. In the end it became a tethered desktop as I couldn't be bothered taking it anywhere.
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.
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
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.
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?