'Power Capping' the Datacenter 112
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."
How long until.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just a friendlier name for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How long until.. (Score:2, Insightful)
One only wonders how long it will be until every spreadsheet process becomes "business critical" to override restrictions such as this.
When the business involved has to pay a larger and larger bill, that which is considered "critical" is increasingly analyzed as the bottom line gets thinner and thinner. When margins are fat, daily $4 lattes are "critical" to staff morale. Conversely, when times are really tight, staff morale is critical at "well, you ain't fired yet, is yeh?".
Re:Our Policy (Score:3, Insightful)
Power capping is intended to be used by the server owner; e.g. in a colo that would be the customer, not the provider. You give the customer a circuit and they use capping to fit as many servers as possible on it.
Re:Not a crisis (Score:1, Insightful)
1) Determine the relationship between the US dollar and economy and global oil trade
2) Understand why EROEI is so significant when discussing alternative energies
Re:Not a crisis (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Just a friendlier name for... (Score:2, 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.
Just because you can do something, and it will be profitable, does not mean that you should do it.
Overselling anything should be expressly prohibited by law in the strongest terms possible. Honestly, it really pisses me off. At the very least, the amount of overselling should be disclosed to customers with agreed upon limits. I should be INFORMED.
If I am paying your company X amount of dollars and you don't deliver your Y amount of product, I will vehemently seek all remedies available. You can bet your ass on that. It's an unacceptable risk. Additionally, you are not actually delivering Y amount of product at all. What you are really stating is that there will be a Z amount of probability that I will receive Y amount of product for X amount of dollars. Well, contracts don't usually reflect that do they? Not any I have seen.
Overselling is a dirty secret that is kept in the shadows for good reason.
Now if I KNOW that you are overselling X amount then I can at least make an informed decision as to whether or not I want to risk using your services. This is at least well known with residential ISP's. Even the most unsophisticated consumer knows they will never see the number they are being sold. They just accept it. Well, businesses do not. If I have 50 Mb/s promised to a full rack and I can't achieve that amount with testing and use, I will complain loudly until I do.
I don't see how it allows oversubscription at all. Most full racks have several 20 amps circuits that are delivered.... 20 amps. Rule of thumb says you limit your usage to 15 amps at any one time to reduce the risk of server usage overloading the circuit and causing failure.
What this technology allows is for you to use the entire 20 amps more efficiently. I can put more servers in that cabinet since I can be assured that all of the servers together will not exceed 20 AMPS. Assuming that the technology is really that good and can control the power usage of every component, hard drives included.
I don't see how this allows the data center to deliver me less then 20 amps to my circuits. If they did that and caused my equipment to go down .... it would get really ugly. Really ugly. Really frickin UGLY. I have seen and heard about just those situations where power was not delivered and redundancy failed. Meetings and conferences and rather large compensations from the data center to the customer.
It is far more logical that this would appeal to the data center since it would simply allow more servers to be populated in a rack and more efficient usage of available power, not that the data center is going to deliver less than what they are promising.
Re:Just a friendlier name for... (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.)