Conclusion

The HP DL380 G7 continues to earn our respect as a very effcient server. It is also a much easier server to handle, thanks to its integrated graphics chip and remote management (BMC). Still, it is clear that these features are not that important for web applications that have to scale out over a large number of servers.


Each rack at Facebook contains 30 Open Compute servers

The Facebook Open Compute servers have made quite an impression on us. Remember, this is Facebook's first attempt to build a cloud server! This server uses very little power when running at low load (see our idle numbers) and offers slightly better performance while consuming less energy than one of the best general purpose servers on the market. The power supply power factor is also top notch, resulting in even more savings (e.g. power factoring correction) in the data center.

While it's possible to look at the Open Compute servers as a "Cloud only" solution, we imagine anyone with quite a few load-balanced web servers will be interested in the hardware. So far only Cloud / hyperscale data center oriented players like Rackspace have picked up the Open Compute idea, but a lot of other people could benefit from buying these kind of "keep it simple" servers in smaller quantities.

Looking back over the past few years, a significant part of the innovation in IT has been the result of people building upon or being inspired by open source software (think Android, Amazon's EC2, iOS, Hyper-V...). We look forward to meeting the new data center and hardware technologies that the Open Compute Project will inspire.

 

 

Measuring Real-World Power Consumption, Part 2
POST A COMMENT

67 Comments

View All Comments

  • iwod - Thursday, November 3, 2011 - link

    And i am guessing Facebook has at least 10 times more then what is shown on that image. Reply
  • DanNeely - Thursday, November 3, 2011 - link

    Hundreds or thousands of times more is more likely. FB's grown to the point of building its own data centers instead of leasing space in other peoples. Large data centers consume multiple megawatts of power. At ~100W/box, that's 5-10k servers per MW (depending on cooling costs); so that's tens of thousands of servers/data center and data centers scattered globally to minimize latency and traffic over longhaul trunks. Reply
  • pandemonium - Friday, November 4, 2011 - link

    I'm so glad there are other people out there - other than myself - that sees the big picture of where these 'miniscule savings' goes. :) Reply
  • npp - Thursday, November 3, 2011 - link

    What you're talking about is how efficient the power factor correction circuits of those PSUs are, and not how power efficient the units their self are... The title is a bit misleading. Reply
  • NCM - Thursday, November 3, 2011 - link

    "Only" 10-20% power savings from the custom power distribution????

    When you've got thousands of these things in a building, consuming untold MW, you'd kill your own grandmother for half that savings. And water cooling doesn't save any energy at all—it's simply an expensive and more complicated way of moving heat from one place to another.

    For those unfamiliar with it, 480 VAC three-phase is a widely used commercial/industrial voltage in USA power systems, yielding 277 VAC line-to-ground from each of its phases. I'd bet that even those light fixtures in the data center photo are also off-the-shelf 277V fluorescents of the kind typically used in manufacturing facilities with 480V power. So this isn't a custom power system in the larger sense (although the server level PSUs are custom) but rather some very creative leverage of existing practice.

    Remember also that there's a double saving from reduced power losses: first from the electricity you don't have to buy, and then from the power you don't have to use for cooling those losses.
    Reply
  • npp - Thursday, November 3, 2011 - link

    I don't remember arguing that 10% power savings are minor :) Maybe you should've posted your thoughts as a regular post, and not a reply. Reply
  • JohanAnandtech - Thursday, November 3, 2011 - link

    Good post but probably meant to be a reply to erwinerwinerwin ;-) Reply
  • NCM - Thursday, November 3, 2011 - link

    Johan writes: "Good post but probably meant to be a reply to erwinerwinerwin ;-)"

    Exactly.
    Reply
  • tiro_uspsss - Thursday, November 3, 2011 - link

    Is it just me, or does placing the Xeons *right* next to each other seem like a bad idea in regards to heat dissipation? :-/

    I realise the aim is performance/watt but, ah, is there any advantage, power usage-wise, if you were to place the CPUs further apart?
    Reply
  • JohanAnandtech - Thursday, November 3, 2011 - link

    No. the most important rule is that the warm air of one heatsink should not enter the stream of cold air of the other. So placing them next to each other is the best way to do it, placing them serially the worst.

    Placing them further apart will not accomplish much IMHO. most of the heat is drawn away to the back of the server, the heatsinks do not get very hot. You also lower the airspeed between the heatsinks.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now