|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Energy consumption vs % utilization?
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. -M< -- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018 Network Engineer IV Operations & Infrastructure [email protected] > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of > Nils Ketelsen > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 2:09 PM > To: [email protected] > 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. > > Nils >
|