Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Power could cost more than servers, Google warns
Cnet news ^

Posted on 12/09/2005 2:01:26 PM PST by Lets Roll NOW

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last
To: theFIRMbss

Intel making better desktop chips than AMD? Bah! AMD is wiping the floor with Intel in the desktop chip segment right now and has been for a while now.


21 posted on 12/09/2005 2:53:45 PM PST by Andrew_Kalionzes (Anti-Liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RockyMtnMan
Actually todays processors do consume significantly more power than their predecessors.

True, but not in terms of power consumed per performance. The link shows a semi-log plot.

On the steep end of the AMD curve performance went from 500 to 3000 Mhz, a six-fold increase, while power went up from 60 to 90 watts, a 0.5-fold increase. IOW performance went up 12 times faster than power consumption.

Computers require highly refined energy. To get the refined energy "noise" is stripped away as heat. This is a good thing because the refined energy can do more things and is therefore more valuable. I urge all Freeper to read the book The Bottomless Well for more details on the energy economy and the impact computers and the Internet have on it.

22 posted on 12/09/2005 2:56:38 PM PST by BigBobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: printhead

Their architecture probably requires massive parallel processing and would have been too cost prohibitive to employ modern PCs.

They should look into the PC104 form factor boards like the one used at Sandia labs (ASCI Red) that I was lucky enough to see up close, although now dated.


23 posted on 12/09/2005 2:59:06 PM PST by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lets Roll NOW

Well, yes, but...

I was at what was then the Compaq technical conference in Houston when Bill Gates made the astounding boast that they had finally shut down their last non-PC servers, the 16 AS400s that ran Microsoft's accounting systems, and they had replaced them with 1600 Compaq servers.

that's one thousand six hundred servers needed to replace sixteen AS400s.

Almost all of us in the room mumbled "this is a good thing?"


24 posted on 12/09/2005 2:59:46 PM PST by Phsstpok (There are lies, damned lies, statistics and presentation graphics, in descending order of truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigBobber

Given the amount of heat the north/south bridge chips put off some of that power per watt metric has simply been distributed across the motherboard and is not reflected in the chart. With higher memory bus speeds memory is beginning to consume more power as well.

Just about every component in a modern PC has increased in performance and as a result the overall power consumption requirement has followed along. The overall system power requirement is definately increasing. While the performance per watt of CPU's may have gradually increased, the amount power for the components to support the CPU has increase significantly.


25 posted on 12/09/2005 3:11:39 PM PST by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lets Roll NOW
I looked but couldn't find the power requirements of a single 2314 but it had to be a lot...just to run a lousy 10Mb drive.

Plus the power to run all the AC it required to cool all that stuff down....

26 posted on 12/09/2005 3:16:52 PM PST by Proud_texan ("Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lets Roll NOW
Power consuption by servers has been dropping for years. Computer rooms that used old mainframes years ago used to require 600KW, that same room now with much more computing power will only use about 150KW.

Sure, but the timeframe specified was the last 3 generations of Googles infrastructure. That's probably no more than 5 years, so his observation is undoubtedly correct for what he's observing in his environment, just as what you say is correct in your experience.

I know that power and heat dissapation are higher in my attention than they have been in the past for installations I'm working on.

27 posted on 12/09/2005 3:17:07 PM PST by cryptical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RockyMtnMan
Maybe MIT and Nicholas Negroponte can help out.

All those Google servers could have giant hand cranks, and all the Google engineers could have a go at turning the crank!

28 posted on 12/09/2005 3:20:24 PM PST by twntaipan (MERRY CHRISTMAS WAS NOT A PROBLEM UNTIL THE DEMOCRATS MADE IT A PROBLEM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: twntaipan

They might be better off buying a couple 1000 XBox 360's since Microsoft sells them at a loss. The specs are impressive, although I don't know the power requirements involved.


29 posted on 12/09/2005 3:27:16 PM PST by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Lets Roll NOW
I wonder what sort of battery life laptops could get if they combined some of today's technology with yesterday's performance? Pretty good, I'd think.

Too bad that as hardware gets faster, software gets slower to compensate.

30 posted on 12/09/2005 3:32:14 PM PST by supercat (Sony delinda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yossarian
and/or actual electron tunneling - the electron just says "SHAZAM!", and jumps across an insulator.

Quantum mechanical probability in action!

31 posted on 12/09/2005 4:37:42 PM PST by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RockyMtnMan
I believe Intel recently made an announcement about a new material/process to address heat and size but targeted 2011 (I think) before it would reach production.

That actually isn't too far off. Working backwards,

2006 is 3 weeks away...Intel engineers better get hopping!

(Actually, I'm guessing Intel could pour on the heat and come out with something in late 2008 if they had to....)

32 posted on 12/09/2005 5:18:47 PM PST by Yossarian (The media is now simply running a 24/7 soap opera with Dubya cast as the arch villain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lets Roll NOW
The rule of thumb is $1/watt/year, which takes into account direct and indirect (cooling, etc) energy costs. Your typical 1U dual Opteron server is actually pretty efficient in real world measurements. Running full out, typical dual Opteron power draw is 175-185W. Comparable dual Xeon hover around 220-240W. This is typical measured power, not theoretical or manufacturing spec.

That puts your typical server in <$250/year for energy. Your average hard disk costs about 10x its annual energy costs to operate when heavily used. I'm having a hard time following their math.

33 posted on 12/09/2005 5:27:23 PM PST by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RockyMtnMan
Massive RAID arrays that google is likely to employ would require enormous amounts of power.

Google uses scads of cheap 1U servers with a couple cheap disks. Pure bang for the buck, make up for it in quantity.

34 posted on 12/09/2005 5:29:48 PM PST by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Phsstpok
>that's one thousand six hundred servers needed to replace sixteen AS400s. Almost all of us in the room mumbled "this is a good thing?"

At our library,
they have about three dozen
PCs for patrons.

They're all networked, BUT
when anything's updated,
the tech support geek

must walk to each box
and update each one itself.
Minis were a breeze.

35 posted on 12/10/2005 7:14:43 AM PST by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tortoise
>serious consequences for the overall affordability of computing, not to mention the overall health of the planet
>>I'm having a hard time following their math


36 posted on 12/10/2005 7:18:48 AM PST by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Andrew_Kalionzes
>Intel making better desktop chips than AMD? Bah!

That's not exactly
the article's point. It says
Intel is better

at low power chips,
with a wider selection
of chips in that realm.

And it suggested
Jobs may position Apple
to focus products

in the low voltage
domain. That is cool with me.
I hate wall sockets.

37 posted on 12/10/2005 7:23:05 AM PST by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson