| Art Alexion on 21 Jun 2008 22:11:43 -0700 |
|
On Saturday 21 June 2008 17:03:02 jeff wrote: > > This saves energy because a single fully loaded server > > requires less electricity that dozens of partially loaded servers. > > Bingo. > > > maintenance, etc. (Cooling costs will only go down in proportion to > > electricity consumption, so not as dramatic a savings there.) > > Going from about 20 to about 4 is fairly significant. This time of year, and based on personal experience, this savings is not limited to the energy it takes to run the servers. We have two sources of air conditioning in our server room. Last week, the one supplied by the building failed to cool the room. After a couple of days of repeated heat outages, and running 3 fans in addition to the air conditioning units, we decided to start pricing out another air conditioning unit to break our reliance on the old building unit. Someone else calculated the BTUs we would need, but the acquisition and installation estimates came in at $11500 for 3 tons, and $52000 for 5 tons. Mind you, that doesn't include operating costs, and with gas prices increasing, can electricity costs be far behind? Now that is for a room with 20 servers and off-site backup only. We are in the process of virtualizing those 20 into 3(+1 redundant backup). My guess is that we won't have to do anything with the air conditioners when we drop the heat load by a factor of 5. Not to mention that we are doing it with the benefit of redundancy that would otherwise cost a lot more in hardware and air conditioning. Attachment:
signature.asc ___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|