'Power Capping' the Datacenter

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."

Comments

Just a friendlier name for...

[clarkcox3]

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.

Re:Just a friendlier name for...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.)

Re:Not a crisis

[FooAtWFU]

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?