Which Container is better Sun or Rackable?

I had an interesting call with an investment firm who wanted to discuss Data Center Containers.  He asked a question which one has a better container Sun or Rackable?

I told them it's too early in the container game to declare who the winner is.

Jokingly then I said Rackable, because it's bigger, and hey part of this is marketing and you see a 40 foot ice cube next to a Sun 20 foot project blackbox which one is more impressive.  He chuckled at the comment.

After a bit more thought. I do think Rackable picked a better initial build out with 40 foot vs. the 20 foot Sun Box.

If you are going to go with containers are you going to take small steps? Or go for it with a 40 footer.  Note Microsoft's references to CBlox being 40 feet.  There is no mention of 20 foot containers.

This flies in the face of the idea of over provisioning, and getting more than you need, but marketing means giving what people they want to buy, not what is logical for them.

Read more

ComputerWorld writes: 6 reasons why Microsoft's container-based approach to data centers won't work

I've been waiting for the ComputerWorld article on Containers part 2, and here it is.  After attending Uptime Institute and talking to vendors and customers, I do think containers will work, but there are lots of people who are going to disagree as it changes the game.

May 9, 2008 (Computerworld) Microsoft Corp.'s plan to fill its mammoth Chicago data center with servers housed in 40-foot shipping containers has experts wondering whether the strategy will succeed. In Microsoft's plan, each container in the data center, still being built, will be filled with several thousand servers.

Computerworld queried several outside experts — including the president of a data center construction firm, a data center engineer-turned-CIO, an operations executive for a data center operator and a "green" data center consultant — to get their assessments of the strategy. While they were individually impressed with some parts of Microsoft's plan, they also expressed skepticism that the idea will work in the long term.

Here are some of their objections, along with the responses of Mike Manos, Microsoft's senior director of data center services. Manos talked with Computerworld in an interview after the Data Center World show at which Microsoft's plan was announced

I am in there a few times. And unfortunately, was misquoted, but hey that is the tradeoff of talking to the press.

That's why some observers, such as Ohara, say the market is actually in smaller units. A former supply chain engineer for both Hewlett-Packard and Apple, Ohara has been developing his own prototypes for a "server cube" that would weigh about 1,000 pounds and measure 1 meter in each dimension — hence the name of his blog, GreenM3.

"It's taking what's in a server rack but putting it into a cube to make it more efficient to roll out," he said. "That potentially could apply to many more people."

I am not actually developing a server cube. I was trying to explain the method of how you look at compute in cubic meter, explaining my GreenM3 story.

I am also in the article for

"Say 25% of the servers have failed inside a container after a year. You may say you don't need that compute capacity — fine," said Dave Ohara, a data center consultant and blogger. "But what's potentially expensive is that 25% of the power committed to that container is doing nothing. Ideally, you want to use that power for something else.

"Electrical power is my scarce resource, not processing power," Ohara concluded.

But, I think anyone who is smart will figure this out, and design around it.

Read more

A Green Technique, look for the Truth

Had an interesting conversation with an ex-coworker Rob Oikawa  who now works in MSNBC.COM as an architect. We're both old timers for the industry who enjoy thinking out of the box.

After kicking around a bunch of ideas and discussing the Green topic, Rob hit upon a good observation.  He said, "Dave you look for the truth as part of being Green."

2 a (1): the state of being the case : fact (2): the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3)often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b: a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c: the body of true statements and propositions

Simple observation.  Makes sense.

A green technique is to look for the truth. 

Why add the metering and monitoring to your systems? To look for the truth of performance and consumption.

Read more

Who are the Energy Hogs in Data Centers?

I found this web site www.energyhog.org with a wikipedia referenceimage

Energy Hog is an energy efficiency campaign developed by the Ad Council and run by the Alliance to Save Energy that engages children and raises awareness of the benefits of energy efficiency. He is a villainous character who wastes energy in the home.

The campaign is a non-profit effort with more than twenty sponsors, including The Home Depot, the U.S. Department of Energy, and several state energy offices.

[edit] Goal

The main goal of the Energy Hog campaign is to raise awareness of energy efficiency so that people can save money on their energy bills which were expected to rise throughout the winter of 2005–2006.

[edit] Criticisms

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats called the new campaign "a toothless" energy savings program following an inaccurate media report

And, it got me thinking who are the Energy Hogs in the data center industry. The largest consumers? Or those that use it the most inefficiently? Given the secretive nature of data centers are you hog if you don't share your energy efficiency best practices.

For an interesting example of Energy Hog behavior check out this article on Aspen vacation homes: 61% of the energy consumption is from vacation homes even though they are occupied only 90 days a year on average.

Aspen vacation homes: Energy hogs

Sprawling, little-used second homes sock it to Aspen by generating most of its residential greenhouse gases

By Steve Lipsher Denver Post Staff Writer

Article Last Updated: 08/30/2007 03:12:59 AM MDT

Construction continues on a 15,000-square-foot home on Red Mountain, overlooking Aspen and the town's ski hill. The average single-family home in Aspen measures 3,272 square feet. (Special to The Post / Zach Ornitz)

With their heated driveways, outdoor hot tubs and 24-hour surveillance systems, Aspen's vacation homes each use more electricity than a block of average American homes, a new study reports.

As a result, the luxurious second homes generate most of the town's residential greenhouse gases, even though many of them are occupied only a few weeks each year.

They emit more carbon than Aspen's fully occupied homes, according to the study by the Sopris Foundation.

"I suppose if you make a million dollars or more, and there are several people in Aspen who do - many, actually - you can afford the utility bills," said Richard Heede of Climate Mitigation Services, who conducted the study.

Still, Heede was surprised to find that second homes generate 61 percent of the town's residential carbon dioxide emissions - the main man-made greenhouse gas - even though they are unoccupied an average of 277 days a year.

Aspen vacation homes each generate 43.8 tons of carbon dioxide a year compared with 32.4 tons by each full-time, single-family residence, the report calculates.

The average U.S. household with four people generates between 30 and 40 tons of carbon dioxide a year, depending on elements such as its type of heating fuel, according to the federal Environmental Protection Agency's carbon calculator.

Aspen's vacation homes are often much larger than locally owned homes and use, even when empty, as much energy as full-time residences, Heede said.

"Many energy demands are unnecessary and egregious, such as driveway heating, roof-melt systems, hot tubs (and) towel-bar heaters," he said.

Then there are the whirring motors of cigar humidors and wine cellars, and the flicking on and off of 24/7 floodlights, the report says.

While disproportionate energy use in second homes exists in every mountain-resort community, it is most pronounced in Aspen, where conspicuous consumption is a status symbol and there are 150 homes exceeding 10,000 square feet.

Read more

Microsoft Employee, Blogs a Response to NYTimes article on Climate-Change Ranking

The Green PR wars are escalating and the latest report from Climate Counts is covered by the NYTimes.

Craig Berman, a spokesman for Amazon.com — which scored 5 this year, up from zero in 2007 — also shrugged off the scores. He noted that Amazon had made “significant progress” in reducing packaging and otherwise reducing its carbon footprint.

Companies that showed marked improvement were far more exuberant. Google, which has pledged to become carbon neutral, rose by 38 points, to 55. “Projects that had been years in the making came to fruition,” said Bill Weihl, Google’s green energy czar.

The NYTimes article makes no mention of Yahoo or Microsoft.  This interesting that Google gets better scores than Yahoo, even though Yahoo has achieved carbon neutrality for 2007 by buying carbon credits.  Yahoo scores 37.  The Yahoo green staff have got to be pissed.

Microsoft employee, Lewis Curtis, blogs a response to the NYtimes article.

Today, in the New York Times, the Climate Counts group gave an impressive rating to Google 55 while rating Microsoft at a 38.   They quoted Google's commitment to go carbon neutral.   

Google is a heavy user for energy and all of their green token projects have been tiny.  I predict they have spent more money marketing their green projects than the actual projects themselves.

Also, if they have a commitment to be carbon neutral, why don't they release their real carbon footprint numbers?  in the spirit of openness and "do no evil", why don't they disclose the real progress or allow the public to tour their centers to see the real work being done to improve environmental impact?

Apple was given a very low rating of 11.   I think it's comical in the interview with the New York Times, Apple blamed much of their carbon footprint on their users. 

So let talk about Microsoft:

Microsoft is one of the only massive web solutions companies that allows customers to tour their datacenters to see the real  environmental improvements to increase efficiency and decrease environmental impact.

From presentations from Microsoft's datacenter team to the public, it's explained how we measure and how granular we measure and what specific steps Microsoft takes.   I've worked for many large tech giants and at this point, I haven't seen a more open model to the public. 

also:

Microsoft as developed the most aggressive power saving features in the world for client and server computers.  There are significant power savings capabilities for consumers and administrators to control to reduce energy consumption of their operating system experience.

Microsoft's .Net platform has capabilities for developers to write power aware applications in WPF (windows presentation foundation) to reduce power drain on client systems.

In the last couple of years,(many would be surprised) Microsoft now offers some of the most consolidation infrastructure options to reduce the number of servers and clients in an IT organization.

Microsoft invests significant amounts of money into the Microsoft Research group to design solutions for consumers and corporations reduce environmental impact. 

Microsoft offers some of the most pervasive remote worker solutions in the world.

Microsoft has invested significantly in websites, concerts and public campaigns to  help consumers learn how to reduce environmental impact (much of it not relating to our product line).

In reality, it's easy to see how critics can pick apart organizations through their narrow lens.  I predict that we will see more of these models in the future.   But, I hope the environmental sustainability market matures to a better state than this.

Read more