Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

When Does Powering Down Servers Make Sense?

Posted by timothy on from the after-coffee-is-served-of-course dept.

snydeq writes "Powering down servers to conserve energy is a controversial practice that, if undertaken wisely, could greatly benefit IT in its quest to rein in energy costs in the datacenter. Though power cycling's long-term effects on server hardware may be mythical, its effects on IT and business operations are certainly real and often detrimental. Yet, development, staging, batch processing, failover — several server environments seem like prime candidates for routine power cycling to reduce datacenter energy consumption. Under what conditions and in what environments does powering down servers seem to make the most economic and operational sense, and what tips do folks have to offer to those considering making use of the practice?"

7 of 301 comments (clear)

  1. Virtualize! Virtualize! Virtualize! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you virtualized your servers, you could create a managed power-down/power-up scenario. In the morning, your servers would turn on, your virtualized instances would move around (so they have more power for the day's activities), and then at night they'd retreat to a smaller group of servers. The unused servers could shut down for the night. You could even rotate which servers stay on overnight keeping the virtual servers running to spread the wear around if there is some.

    1. Re:Virtualize! Virtualize! Virtualize! by nabsltd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      First, let's assume "several hundred" equals 200, and we have exactly 65000 employees. Let's also assume that these extra servers are on for exactly 48 hours. Let's also assume perfect load balancing and distribution of the process over the servers.

      That means that each server processes payroll for 325 employees in 48 hours, or about 7 employees per hour. So, each of these servers is basically the equivalent of a Commodore 64 in computing power. I suggest that the best way to save money at this task is to replace the 200 servers with a single Pentium 4 quad core running at 3GHz.

      The other explanation—that the software is so unbelievably bad that it really does take 8½ minutes for it to run a single employee—is possible, but would going out and buying "QuickBooks" really cost more than the 200 servers to run this awful beast of a payroll program?

    2. Re:Virtualize! Virtualize! Virtualize! by Silentknyght · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you have a consulting or legal business, where your employees bill time by the tenth of an hour, then yes, this could be a much longer process than you estimate. You have to tabulate all the hours for each employee for the month, and then allocate each hour spent on each day to each client, each client's job, each phase of said job, and each task under that job. Spread that across 1000 active clients with 1-2 jobs each, many with multiple phases, and all with multiple task codes. None of that has to do with processing a paycheck for me. The billing cycle isn't about getting a check from your employer, but getting a check from your client. The above may seem overly complex, but they ask for it and they pay the bills.

  2. Like a car... by fiftysixquarters · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seriously, this analogy makes sense. When a car is cruising on the high way it's able to maintain speed using 4/8 cylinders. Servers could be cycled in a similar fashion. Do you really need 20 web servers running at 3 am on a Sunday?

  3. XenServer by Obsession12 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Full disclosure, I work for Citrix. Check out XenServer, which can remotely provision server workloads to virtual and bare metal machines - based on load, you can remotely power up resources as needed. I have seen the future, and it is awesome. And green.

    --
    Atari, System V, C64, Amiga, College Unix (?, I wasn't like root or nothin'), Mac, WinNinetySighs, NT, Novell, Win2K, So
  4. Re:Business needs and Risk by vwjeff · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Example Setup The organization I work for has a well known usage patterns that we use to make decisions like this. 95% or more of our traffic occurs during business hours which we define as 7:00 AM - 7:00 PM. During business hours we have dedicated servers for various functions. We have a cluster of servers running virtual server instances that duplicate the dedicated servers. During off hours the dedicated servers are powered down and the virtual server instances take over. It works for us and we have seen a significant decrease in power usage with no impact on our users.

  5. Re:Old gear by xaxa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Analogy (this time, light bulbs).
    - Light bulbs fail just as you turn them on. Or off.
    - They hardly ever fail whilst switched on.

    I think servers are the same. You're in trouble if a server you've had switched on for two years and forgotten about loses power and doesn't come back up. If it'd been switched off every weekend it would have failed earlier -- but probably at a more convenient time.