Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'Power Capping' the Datacenter

Posted by samzenpus on from the slow-your-roll dept.

snydeq writes "Datacenter operators seeking increased server density may soon turn to power capping, an emerging technology that limits the amount of electricity a server can consume, InfoWorld reports. The practice, which can be applied at the rack level, ensures that no server draws above a set power level, thereby increasing datacenter capacity within a rack-level power envelope by as much as 20 percent, according to a proof-of-concept study at Baidu, China's largest search company. As with powering down servers during off hours, of course, power capping incurs calculated risk, as those in charge of business-critical applications may be reluctant to set power limits below maximum utilization. Yet given IT's need to contend with the permanent energy crisis, the notion of power capping the datacenter could prove advantageous."

7 of 112 comments (clear)

  1. How long until.. by Rayeth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One only wonders how long it will be until every spreadsheet process becomes "business critical" to override restrictions such as this.

  2. Not a crisis by tsotha · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Permanent energy crisis"? There's no such thing as a permanent crisis. Yes, energy costs are going up because we're more sensitive to the impact of new capacity. But that hardly constitutes a crisis. The word "crisis" has been practically stripped of meaning - everything these days is a goddamn crisis. When the girlfriend you were about to dump gets pregnant - that's a crisis. A few bucks more on your energy bill - not a crisis.

    1. Re:Not a crisis by tsotha · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sigh. I understand all that, but the numbers are hardly insurmountable, or even very uncomfortable. How many nuclear power plants could we have built for the trillion dollars we spent on "stimulus"? Four or five in every state, by my calculations. The idea that everything is just going to fall apart when the price of oil goes up is just silly.

    2. Re:Not a crisis by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The Stone Age didn't end because they ran out of stone. The Oil Age might end when we start to run low on oil, but that doesn't mean we won't have plenty of alternatives.

      The economic argument for all sorts of magic coming from having oil traded in USD is weak. A barrel of oil is worth whatever the next buyer things a barrel of oil is worth, a dollar is worth whatever the next guy who gets it thinks it's worth. These things are both fungible, they're both pretty liquid. There's a vibrant currency exchange market. If people think the dollar or the barrel-o-crude is not worth what it used to be, the prices are perfectly capable of shifting to match. Look at the last big recession and oil crisis of the 1980s. Look at 2008, for crying out loud. The US dollar may wax and wane, the US economy may shrink 10% in a bad year, but oil dropped from over $100 a barrel to something like $30.

      As for the money supply, the Federal Reserve is pretty capable of generating as much or as little of our little fiat currency as they feel like. The national debt (and the price at which people are willing to buy it worldwide) is what's going to be weighing on the US and its economy over the next several decades, much more than any medium-of-exchange games. The government and the private sector compete for loans: when there's more debt, it's more expensive for private firms to borrow and that hurts economic growth - because look! Treasury bonds! They're nice and safe. Why would you invest in a risky old Business in /this/ economy?

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  3. Just a friendlier name for... by clarkcox3 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Ins't this just putting a friendlier name on "overselling"?
    • We can pack in 20% more boxes because we don't really have the power to meet demand should all of them spike at once, but that doesn't usually happen.
    • We can sell in 20% more airline seats because we don't really have the room to meet demand should all of the customers actually show up, but that doesn't usually happen.
    • We can claim unlimited bandwidth, because we don't really have the capacity to meat demand should all of our customers actually download 24/7, but that doesn't usually happen.
    • etc. etc. etc.
    --
    There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
    1. Re:Just a friendlier name for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, and it is that kind of amoral and unethical crap that is giving the shaft to the consumer day after day after day.

      You're right! Gyms, for example, shouldn't sell memberships to more people than they can fit in the gym at the same time. Otherwise, if every one of their members decided to go to the gym at once, they'd have to turn some away!

      (Seriously - overselling is just another risk. Taking no risks is bad. Taking too much risk is bad.)

  4. Another way to overcharge smaller users by khodsden · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This happens to be why my quarter rack space has only 2 1U computers in it. It was supposed to be a quarter rack (10U), but I was told I had only 7U of space. Okay, not a problem, I can put in 7 1U systems, 14 if I purchase the half sized systems. Then I was told I have only 2A, oh, and here's a switch that'll turn it off if you go over. Which means my quarter rack has two 1U servers in it.

    Worse, even the full rack is allowed only 15A before you have to buy a secondary power conduit to the rack at this particular colo.

    I suspect it's more a way for the facility to make money than it is to reduce energy usage. When I visited the facility last to move boxes, 4 racks were being emptied and a good 60% of them were completely empty anyway, so the facility may not be long in this economy.