North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: Energy consumption vs % utilization?
- From: Hannigan, Martin
- Date: Tue Oct 26 14:52:14 2004
This is far more complicated than this. That's why I suggested
the Datacenters list.
A lot is determined not just by your revenue target per square foot,
but cooling, your distribution, your breaker density and sizing, etc.
Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663
VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018
Network Engineer IV Operations & Infrastructure
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
> Nils Ketelsen
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 2:09 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Energy consumption vs % utilization?
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 01:52:51PM -0400, Gregory (Grisha)
> Trubetskoy wrote:
> > Sorry, this is somewhat OT.
> Also Sorry, but I think the question itself is completely flawed.
> > I'm looking for information on energy consumption vs
> percent utilization.
> > In other words if your datacenter consumes 720 MWh per
> month, yet on
> > average your servers are 98% underutilized, you are wasting
> a lot of
> > energy (a hot topic these days). Does anyone here have any
> real data on
> > this?
> What does 98% underutilized mean?
> What is the utilization of a device with fully built out RAM
> that is used
> to 100%, when the CPU is used 2% only?
> What is the utilization of a system, that uses two percent of the
> memory and two percent of the available CPU time, when the policy
> of the top secret organization owning this system requires, that the
> application is running on a seperated machine?
> Sure many machines might be (computing power wise) able to
> handle Firewalling, Routing, Webserving, Database Serving,
> Mailserving and
> storing accounting data, but still there might be very good reasons to
> seperate these on different machines.
> If you take points like policy requirement (see above:
> an application might by policy utilize a machine to 100%),
> different types
> of resources, failover etc. into account, you might end up
> with different numbers then just looking at the CPU (and I
> have the feeling that is what you did or were intending to do).
> Actually I think nobody does calculate "real" utilization,
> as there are a lot of soft factors to be taken into account.