Data Factories

by Sean Hackbarth

Server Farm

In promoting Earth Hour Google failed to look at itself in the mirror. Der Spiegel reports buildings loaded with computers are a big waste of energy. The search giant is mentioned for how electricity costs and access to cooling water have determined the location of one of its data centers:

It is no coincidence that search engine giant Google is building its newest computer center near the Dalles Dam, a huge hydroelectric power plant in Oregon. Buying electricity directly from the plant costs one-fifth as much as Google would be paying in California. Besides, the Columbia River supplies inexpensive water to operate the eight multistory cooling towers designed to handle the waste heat from tens of thousands of computers.

Users are accustomed to the results of their searches appearing on their computer screens almost magically. Calculations have now been performed to determine the share of power consumption that can be attributed to a single Google search. Depending on the initial data, one Google search consumes enough electricity to run an 11-watt, energy-saving lightbulb for 15 minutes to an hour.

Harper’s Magazine has more details on the Oregon development [via Hot Air].

What internet user doesn’t use Google all the time? Guess we shouldn’t even bother turning on those compact-fluorescent bulbs. Compute in the dark to save the world.

The article goes retro with IBM’s energy-saving idea:

Computer maker IBM, which once operated 160 computer centers worldwide, has been especially determined to centralize its operations. Today, IBM has only seven computer centers, and it hopes to develop a new industry based on growing energy-consciousness. The company has announced its “Big Green” initiative, in which it plans to devote $1 billion (€650 million) a year to the development of “green,” climate-protecting computer technology.

The IBM effort focuses on the mainframe computer. Intricate technology allows such computers to operate like an amalgamation of individual PCs and, as a result, they can replace hundreds of individual computers at a fraction of their combined operating cost. This is because the individual shadow machines are only allocated as much of the mainframe computer’s computing power as they actually need. The technology, known in the industry as “virtualization,” utilizes the hardware far more efficiently across the board. “We save up to 80 percent of the energy while providing the same computing power,” says IBM expert Thomas Tauer.

The company now dreams of a return of the mainframe computers with which it once dominated the computer world. Ironically, the victory march of the inexpensive PC had turned this species into a curiosity of the past. With the exception of major banks and insurance companies, hardly anyone seemed to need the bulky, expensive giants. But now the dinosaurs are back, and IBM reports growing demand.

A few decades ago green and mainframes referred to the monochrome screens users squinted at when writing COBOL code. Today, it’s about saving the world from Google’s search efficiency.

“Massive Computer Centers Worse than Air Traffic”

[picture via Burnt Pixel]

Save and Share:
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • email
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Diigo

7 Responses to “Data Factories”

1

Though in Google’s defense, they have been at the forefront of pushing better DC power supply technology. In fact, they don’t have individual AC-DC power supplies for every computer in their data centers, and in fact have large DC power runs and one set of converters which is much more efficient from a conversion standpoint, and also a heat standpoint (requiring less air conditioning). They were pioneers in this concept for data centers.

2

Nick, I’m sure Google’s developing energy-efficient technology. They’re doing it for their bottom line, not to “save the world.” Instead, they pretend they’re doing something by switching their front page to black.

3

eh, shouldn’t people not be surfing google during earth hour? oh they only have to turn their lights off? not their tvs or computers etc…? That’s not all that revolutionary. All of the lights in my house are off for 9 hours every day when we’re gone at work. I also have all CFL bulbs so it’s not a whole lot of savings (monetary or CO2) for me to turn the three of them off that I use in the evening for an hour…

Seems like this is a feel good stunt that doesn’t actually do much.

4

Yes, the ‘blackout’, google and otherwise, was yet another stupid and meaningless “We Care” moment. And it would not be a stretch to surmise that relighting all those worldly lamps after the feel-good hour used more energy that to run fully lit for that hour.

But this is curious:

“Depending on the initial data, one Google search consumes enough electricity to run an 11-watt, energy-saving lightbulb for 15 minutes to an hour.”

A in-line 300% window? Based on data? No EE I, it still seems implausible.

But beyond that, it is a stat with no comparison. Ok, I agree that if you are searching “Brittany Spears” you are wasting energy (personal and fossil) but say I need a Form 1040; if I use google to find it, and download it and all it’s sub forms and insanely thick instruction set, am I not saving gobs of dinosaur goo over getting into my truck, driving 50-60 miles to/fro the nearest IRS office to pick up the needed stuff, stuff which had to be printed and shipped to said office?

Me thinks so.

Nick sez: >> They were pioneers in this concept for data centers.

Perhaps, but the concept is not new. I’ve run my ever-changing lineup of guitar effects pedals from a single transformer for 20 years+. That too was economic rather than altruistic. 9v batteries ain’t cheap. Even back then.

5

MjM, there’s no question Google has improved people’s lives. They would use the search engine if it didn’t. And as you say efficiencies do occur by moving certain activities online.

However, satisfying wants and needs requires Man to move things: either atoms or bits. That requires energy. More economic growth means greater energy use. We won’t conserve our way to prosperity.

6

We’re on the same page, Sean.

But “improved” is such a relative term. A tool is a tool but wrench is not a hammer, if you catch my meaning.

Yes, things need to move about, and yes we could conserve our keister’s off and in 10 years be right back at square one. That point is well known.

My point was that the the whole tone of the article was the usual leftist neanderthalic “That Bad, This Good”.

We have, of course, the denunciation of the greedy humans (“Users are accustomed to the results of their searches appearing…almost magically”), and the evil corporation (the ironic “As long as Google refuses to release numbers…”). Then Der Spiegel just lays it out: “This thirst for energy also affects the climate.”

I could smell it coming.

Computers Bad. Climate Good.

And it’s all done with out an ounce of analysis about what these data centers might actually be be saving in terms of energy and resources since they came into existence. I’m all for saving energy – because that means saving money (until the next rate hike, that is), but it is dishonest damn to something as wasteful without examining a situation in the context of the thing not existing at all.

And you just know that when IBM succeeds in using one scant nanowatt to move 100zetta of data across 2500 miles of wire/routers/more wire, Der Spiegel will be right there complaining that the “disembodied lightness of the data world is nothing but a pretty illusion.”

sheesh.

7

What gets me revved up is the ignorance on mainframes.

One client I have worked with had a job run on its mainframe, taking a couple of hours on a Friday. They then moved it from their mainframe to a unix system on a smaller system. The job then took the weekend to run. Heaven forbid if they had to rerun the job from the top (however, most batch jobs do not require starting from scratch).

Mainframes were not and are not obsolete or on the way out. Telecoms, manufacturers, retailers, etc are all using mainframes yet.

I do not see such virtualization replacing systems running officer interactive programs (such as Word, Excel, Solitaire, Freecell etc) but I see enterprise applications such as warehouse management, order entry, accounting packages etc migrating back to the mainframe. In fact, the web mimics the traditional mainframe paradigm very well so why not run off of a mainframe.

Leave a Reply




You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>