Comments on: It's time for tech to rein in energy waste
Scientist Jonathan Koomey and AMD exec Mario Rivas say the amount of energy required to run data centers has gotten out of hand.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Ex-Googler Lee sees Apple tablet debut in January
January 1, 2010 9:20 AM PST
- U.S. trade agency eyes Samsung-Sharp spat
January 1, 2010 7:31 AM PST
- Q&A: Researcher Karsten Nohl on mobile eavesdropping
January 1, 2010 4:00 AM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
By the way:
1. Evolution isn't supported by facts
2. There are WMDs in Iraq
3. Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9/11
4. It's un-American to question your government's leaders.
5. A drug-addict radio host knows more about climate science than nobel-prize winning scientists.
There certainly is a lot of crap going around, but not from liberals. The reason you guys have no credibility anymore is because you put ideology over reality.
It is about simple inefficiency... with average server utilziation (x86 anyways) on the order of 5-10%, it means that 90% or more of the electricity consumed isn't doing ANY useful work. That's just dumb business - whatever your beliefs (or not) in Global warming.
Competitive advantage will accrue to those business who have IT organizations who can deploy and run the RIGHT number of SERVERS, at the best utilzation rates, to cost-effectively enable business... their cost per transaction is dramatically lower, their profits per transaction higher... they can capture market share... etc...
Throwing servers, no matter how "efficient" their chips, or fans, or cooling technology, or whatever... at the challenge results in WASTE.
I would hope that whatever ones political bent, one would understand that waste is dumb, when there are more intelligent solutions.
Regards
Dave
David Wagner
Director, Solutions Marketing
BMC Software
www.bmc.com
Read My Blog!: http://talk.bmc.com/blogs/blog-wagner/david-wagner/
By the way:
1. Evolution isn't supported by facts
2. There are WMDs in Iraq
3. Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9/11
4. It's un-American to question your government's leaders.
5. A drug-addict radio host knows more about climate science than nobel-prize winning scientists.
There certainly is a lot of crap going around, but not from liberals. The reason you guys have no credibility anymore is because you put ideology over reality.
It is about simple inefficiency... with average server utilziation (x86 anyways) on the order of 5-10%, it means that 90% or more of the electricity consumed isn't doing ANY useful work. That's just dumb business - whatever your beliefs (or not) in Global warming.
Competitive advantage will accrue to those business who have IT organizations who can deploy and run the RIGHT number of SERVERS, at the best utilzation rates, to cost-effectively enable business... their cost per transaction is dramatically lower, their profits per transaction higher... they can capture market share... etc...
Throwing servers, no matter how "efficient" their chips, or fans, or cooling technology, or whatever... at the challenge results in WASTE.
I would hope that whatever ones political bent, one would understand that waste is dumb, when there are more intelligent solutions.
Regards
Dave
David Wagner
Director, Solutions Marketing
BMC Software
www.bmc.com
Read My Blog!: http://talk.bmc.com/blogs/blog-wagner/david-wagner/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606&q=Nuclear
Second, and more important, I wonder if anyone (who can do something about it!) caught that video? In other words, might Google follow up with a consortium of companies to investigate that tech further?
To respond to the tripe spewed by lingsun above, if you don't believe global warming is an issue, or if you at least don't believe that humans are contributing to the problem then at least consider the fact that we are using up oil faster than we are replacing it. And to extract coal we must rip it out of the ground.
So, with decreasing oil reserves wouldn't you think it wise to find an alternative? What will happen when our children or grandchildren no longer have access to the oil we are using up?
But, closer to the point of this article in dealing with stationary power sources, the vast majority of which use fossil fuels, can you wrap your brain around the concept of how CO2 gets into the air? Sure, carbon exists in all living things so when we (meaning plant, animal, and human life) die, our tissue breaks down and releases that carbon back into the air. Plus, living humans and animals constantly release carbon-based gases back into the air through just about any orifice.
Now, that is recycled carbon that I'm talking about. The problem with fossil fuels is that we pull hidden, "ancient" carbon out of the ground and add it to the carbon already in the atmosphere. Can you begin to see why burning fossil fuels may be cause for concern? We've had a relatively stable percentage of carbon in our atmosphere up until about a 100 years ago (at least stable enough for vast majority of earth's time to develop the plant and animal life we see around us today). Since then we've been increasing that percentage by burning fossil fuels. And it is fairly well established theory that CO2 traps heat in our atmosphere. Think about "100 years". That is a small fraction of time even when compared just to *recorded* human history, let alone compared to just the current era after the last extinction of the dinosaurs.
So given these points doesn't it seem we should err on the side of caution if for no other reason than because the supply of oil is not being replenished, and maybe because I wouldn't want a coal mine in my back yard? I'm guessing you wouldn't either?
So, with decreasing oil reserves wouldn't you think it wise to find an alternative? What will happen when our children or grandchildren no longer have access to the oil we are using up?"
I agree. This shouldn't have anything to do with politics or ideology, in fact even if you think global warming is actually a hoax, it should make sense to find alternatives to fossil fuels for many other reasons (pollution, the fact it will run out, oil money finances terrorism, etc.). However don't get your hopes up; one thing I've learned is you certainly can't reason with a devout right-winger. For certain people (most likely the people who still think Bush is a great leader), global warming denial is a sort of religion. Even if they finally admit global warming is happening, they'll just spew some nonsense about how solving it'll cost the economy trillions or hurt billions of people (as if runaway global warming will be much better), all without any evidence of course. Or else they'll say environmental groups and scientists are just doing it to make money, how exactly they're profiting from it is never really explained (and as if Exxon Mobil's paid shills' only concern is to make sure the public gets the truth).
Anyone who cares and is smart enough to see the truth will just have to find a way to make a difference without a certain ideologically-driven group of people (just like the rest of America finally realized there were no WMDS in Iraq, even though some people still think Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11).
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606&q=Nuclear
Second, and more important, I wonder if anyone (who can do something about it!) caught that video? In other words, might Google follow up with a consortium of companies to investigate that tech further?
To respond to the tripe spewed by lingsun above, if you don't believe global warming is an issue, or if you at least don't believe that humans are contributing to the problem then at least consider the fact that we are using up oil faster than we are replacing it. And to extract coal we must rip it out of the ground.
So, with decreasing oil reserves wouldn't you think it wise to find an alternative? What will happen when our children or grandchildren no longer have access to the oil we are using up?
But, closer to the point of this article in dealing with stationary power sources, the vast majority of which use fossil fuels, can you wrap your brain around the concept of how CO2 gets into the air? Sure, carbon exists in all living things so when we (meaning plant, animal, and human life) die, our tissue breaks down and releases that carbon back into the air. Plus, living humans and animals constantly release carbon-based gases back into the air through just about any orifice.
Now, that is recycled carbon that I'm talking about. The problem with fossil fuels is that we pull hidden, "ancient" carbon out of the ground and add it to the carbon already in the atmosphere. Can you begin to see why burning fossil fuels may be cause for concern? We've had a relatively stable percentage of carbon in our atmosphere up until about a 100 years ago (at least stable enough for vast majority of earth's time to develop the plant and animal life we see around us today). Since then we've been increasing that percentage by burning fossil fuels. And it is fairly well established theory that CO2 traps heat in our atmosphere. Think about "100 years". That is a small fraction of time even when compared just to *recorded* human history, let alone compared to just the current era after the last extinction of the dinosaurs.
So given these points doesn't it seem we should err on the side of caution if for no other reason than because the supply of oil is not being replenished, and maybe because I wouldn't want a coal mine in my back yard? I'm guessing you wouldn't either?
So, with decreasing oil reserves wouldn't you think it wise to find an alternative? What will happen when our children or grandchildren no longer have access to the oil we are using up?"
I agree. This shouldn't have anything to do with politics or ideology, in fact even if you think global warming is actually a hoax, it should make sense to find alternatives to fossil fuels for many other reasons (pollution, the fact it will run out, oil money finances terrorism, etc.). However don't get your hopes up; one thing I've learned is you certainly can't reason with a devout right-winger. For certain people (most likely the people who still think Bush is a great leader), global warming denial is a sort of religion. Even if they finally admit global warming is happening, they'll just spew some nonsense about how solving it'll cost the economy trillions or hurt billions of people (as if runaway global warming will be much better), all without any evidence of course. Or else they'll say environmental groups and scientists are just doing it to make money, how exactly they're profiting from it is never really explained (and as if Exxon Mobil's paid shills' only concern is to make sure the public gets the truth).
Anyone who cares and is smart enough to see the truth will just have to find a way to make a difference without a certain ideologically-driven group of people (just like the rest of America finally realized there were no WMDS in Iraq, even though some people still think Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11).
server room... hard. Not beacuse of any touchy-feely
environmental concerns, but because electricity is expensive.
Besides, there's already been a huge pile of articles covering
ways to reduce power consumption in the datacenter (DC power,
208VAC power supplies, blades, etc).
This smacks too much of "me-too"-ism.
/P
server room... hard. Not beacuse of any touchy-feely
environmental concerns, but because electricity is expensive.
Besides, there's already been a huge pile of articles covering
ways to reduce power consumption in the datacenter (DC power,
208VAC power supplies, blades, etc).
This smacks too much of "me-too"-ism.
/P
Each one only uses a small amount of electricity but there's literally billions of them out there.
"AMD: Performing customer-centric innovation"
the latest advertising video from amd. In an IT industry full of hype and crap surely amd-ati are at the top of the game and probably the less believable of any, in anything they undertake.
"Now we are concentrating on the political football, [and in reality of some serious concern], the environment and will forego our already diminished technological capabilities in favor of hoping that this move will drum up business." LOL
"AMD: Performing customer-centric innovation"
the latest advertising video from amd. In an IT industry full of hype and crap surely amd-ati are at the top of the game and probably the less believable of any, in anything they undertake.
"Now we are concentrating on the political football, [and in reality of some serious concern], the environment and will forego our already diminished technological capabilities in favor of hoping that this move will drum up business." LOL
- Aside from the "did man cause this" issue...
- by HandGlad2 May 6, 2008 9:58 AM PDT
- The first item that needs to be looked at is the common "wall wart". Those things tend to consume a fixed amount electricity all the time whether the device they're used with is attached and turned on or off or even disconnected entirely.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(20 Comments)Each one only uses a small amount of electricity but there's literally billions of them out there.