by Angela Miller

The businessGreen blog featured this very question today with a nice analysis both of what IT manufacturing firms are doing and what both environmentalists and anti-carbon offset advocates see as the disadvantage: choosing to procure carbon offsets without making other fundamental changes within your IT organization does not necessarily improve the environment or the company’s bottom line.

My hot button is the tree-planting offset. Because the ecology.IT blog focuses more on building your green IT department rather than validating the science of carbon offsetting strategies, I will not spend significant time of this issue. I will say, however, that as an environmental scientist I am dubious about tree-planting as a primary method for carbon offsetting both because the projects rarely can guarantee the long-term management of the trees and because the scientific analysis is mixed on the net benefits to the carbon load in the atmosphere of tree planting. For this reason, I generally recommend to potential clients that they consider other carbon offset methodologies. However, as one type of environmental stewardship investment in a larger portfolio of activities (e.g. Dell uses tree-planting as an offset to paper usage within the company), I believe tree planting has a net positive benefit.

So, if we instead focus the conversation around net-new clean energy generation projects funded through carbon offsets we can now have a different conversation as IT managers.

Carbon offsetting should be a supplemental activity that IT Managers include as part of a more significant strategy and portfolio. It is the choice after energy-efficiency improvements and potentially alternative energy sourcing. Once your IT department implements changes that provide substantive improvements, carbon offsets can be a good additional step to neutralize impacts that simply cannot be managed away. The bottom line is that IT must use energy – and for most corporations IT energy demands will continue to grow substantially over the next several years just as they have done for the last decade. However, I caution IT Managers against using Carbon Offsets as a primary strategy for greening your department: you will find a growing number of customers and press dubious about your commitment and corporate social responsibility initiatives if carbon offset is the only step the company has taken.

The value of carbon offsetting with net-new energy generation is that over time those investments increase the potential for reliance on cleaner energy in the future. While such an investment may not be appropriate from the IT budget (I generally recommend that it come from a marketing budget), the responsibility for designing the overall portfolio and estimating the carbon load should come from the IT department.

Dig deeper on the issues:

I relied on the following sites for analysis in support of this post:

businessGreen blog

The design element which differentiates this chip is its native quad-core design which allows each core to be utilized and managed independently. This is a strong design element from the power-management perspective: in the duo-core paired design, the paired cores generally run at the same power level. So if one core is at 75% power so is the other no matter what the processing requirement. In the native quad-core design, the power requirements of each core are managed independently. This simple design change delivers significant power savings.

While some reviewers are saying that AMD is very late to the quad-core game, I believe their design philosophy and the significant power savings prove worth the wait. In addition to the native power savings this chip provides, the sophisticated tools for server virtualization are very strong. Strong enough that Rackspace Managed Hosting decided to deploy the chip after rigorous testing throughout their hosted data center.

We should see over the next several weeks testing centers putting this chip through the paces versus other competitive offerings. I look forward to seeing what the guys at Tom’s Hardware have to say toward validating the performance statements from AMD’s marketing department.

Dig deeper on the issues:

I relied on the following sites for analysis in support of this post:

AMD
TechTarget
CIO
Sustainable IT Blog

by Angela Miller
With the focus ever increasing on energy efficiency in the data center, the topic of virtualization takes center stage for many organizations. Both the performance of the newly-launched VMWare stock on the New York Stock Exchange (from around $29 at IPO to almost $68 today) and Microsoft’s impending push into the virtualization arena demonstrate that virtualization will be a hot topic over the next year.

But the benefits of virtualization are not limited to large data centers, and many organizations miss out on the energy efficiency and cooling benefits of deploying virtualization even in their small IT shop.

According to Gartner, server virtualization is just entering the peak of the hype cycle and it is 2-5 years from ‘mainstream adoption.’ This means that over the next couple of years, IT managers will watch as over 50 vendors vie for marketshare in this re-energized space.

Ironically, virtualization is a mature discipline with over 30 years of history in the IT world. It was a key component of any mainframe deployment as early as the 1970s. But with the proliferation of servers and storage devices and burgeoning IT data centers, virtualization has come around again as a way to more effectively utilize the IT resource.

The impact of virtualization on the environment may not be immediately obvious. But think of it this way: in a company where the trend is for users to specify they must have servers ‘dedicated’ to their function, virtualization is a way to segment pieces of the IT infrastructure to provide those dedicated services without requiring the purchase of separate machines. One powerful server can be segmented into dedicated, non-overlapping functions.

This is a powerful utility, especially when you consider that according to various studies the average usage on a dedicated, stand-alone, functional server is less than 10%.

Virtualization comes in many flavors, from server virtualization through hardware and software, to storage virtualization, to the ability to combine many machines into one virtual device.

Server Virtualization

Server virtualization is either hardware, software, or processor-based. In a hardware scenario, software like VMWare is installed at an operating system layer and allows ‘emulation’. Emulation simply means that a server running Linux for example could also run Microsoft Windows inside of a window within Linux. The basic idea behind this virtualization is that the intermediate software intercepts calls from the emulation window and translates those calls into the underlying operating system to pass to the hardware. The virtualization tool simply serves as a translator between the different environments.

There are many reasons to do this – even at a desktop level. For instance, if you are a small business and you have chosen Apple as your platform, you can install tools to allow you to still run Microsoft Windows within a window on the Apple platform. A small business might do this when they are required to use a particular Windows-based tool to interact with a client and do not wish to procure a new machine. From an environmental perspective, emulation allows companies large and small to run multiple operating systems without requiring acquisition of additional hardware.

The second approach to virtualization is to segment the device into multiple operating systems and allowing these environments to operate independently and simultaneously on one device. In this scenario, the server would run both Linux and Windows at the same time and there would be no conversation between the operating environments – each would make calls to the hardware separately and natively. This approach grew more popular with the release of blade type servers by companies like IBM, HP, Dell and Sun.

Blade servers are quite effective in the data center from an environmental perspective. They are typically stripped of redundant components like power supplies. They are compact and have a small impact on the data center physical footprint. And they are efficient because many servers share so many components. Less waste, less energy, less real estate … all good things from an environmental perspective. (One potential downfall of a densely-populated blade server environment is cooling cost. We’ll cover this in a separate post.)

At the component level, some processors by Intel and AMD now come with native functionality to support virtualization. With newer multi-core, multi-threaded processors, the processor can deliver on the virtualization promise by increasing performance by 3-5 times within one processor (according to IDC). Given the heat generation of the processor, the ability to minimize the number of required processors is highly desirable from an environmental perspective.

Server virtualization clearly delivers significant energy savings to companies that can consolidate their environment effectively.

Storage Virtualization

Like server virtualization, storage virtualization comes in many flavors and tends to be far more complex. The primary theories on storage virtualization are appliance-based, switch-based, and storage-controller based. All three approaches basically rely on mapping tables to route application requests between a ‘virtual’ location and a ‘physical’ location on the disk. Without detailing the specifics in each scenario, the bottom line on storage virtualization is that it allows large data centers the ability to deploy very large, disk-dense devices that again are far more efficient than a distributed set of independent devices.

So to build on the blade server discussion: deploying many stand-alone servers each with their own disk storage that is minimally utilized is far less efficient than installing blade servers without any native storage and then linking them to a large storage array or network as a separate, optimized device.

From an environmental perspective, one can argue which architectural approach to storage virtualization is more efficient, but the use of storage virtualization in any context is far more energy, cooling, and footprint efficient for the enterprise data center.

Conclusion

Server and storage virtualization should be key components to any green IT strategy. Both deliver significant energy and cooling cost savings to the enterprise and SMB through consolidation of resources.

Dig deeper on the issues:

I relied on the following sites for analysis in support of this post:

Vmware
Gartner
IBM
Dell
AMD
Intel
Sun
IDC
ESG
Wikipedia

Their specifications and cited industry research assert that they can save 4-5 watts over competitor drives in idle mode. I tried to substantiate this number with some simple research of specifications offered by the different main competitors in the space using the 3.5” Caviar SATA 500GB drive as the primary comparison. Because Western Digital has not yet announced specifications for the enterprise, I chose three primary competitors based on Gartner estimates of the share of the desktop market: Seagate, Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, and Samsung.

Looking at these numbers is a little like looking at the MPG estimate stickers on cars so it also seemed prudent to see whether any respected technical testing entities had put these drives through their paces. While a review of Tom’s Hardware, AnandTech, ComputerWorld, Storage IO, and The Tech Report, showed that none of these entities had yet tested the Western Digital GP specification, most other specifications came close to the advertised numbers.

From an enterprise IT perspective, choosing a drive that natively uses significantly less power than comparable drives will result in energy savings. If a company converts to drives that will use ½ of the power of other drives, the company might save as much as $10/year/drive in energy cost.

But as a former IT manager, I would have a few concerns:

• In my experience, IT Managers at the enterprise level make decisions about desktop equipment based on the computer vendor rather than components. Rarely would the IT manager specify a particular hard drive, or make a decision on the vendor based solely on the hard drive they offer.
• At the enterprise level, IT Managers depend on vendors to provide an overall solution: you could not approach HDS and request Western Digital as a drive vendor when their OEM providers are HGST and Seagate.
• None of the drives will attain peak energy efficiency performance numbers without serious consideration to configuration, software setup, and consolidation. The bottom line- one 1TB drive will use less energy than 4 250GB drives.

The important take-away from the Western Digital announcement from my perspective: Western Digital is setting the bar higher for energy efficiency and will force their competitors to rise to that expectation in order to retain market share. This energy efficiency innovation will stimulate the hard drive market toward more future improvements.

Dig deeper on the issues:

I relied on the following sites for analysis in support of this post:

Gartner
Western Digital
Samsung
Hitachi Global Storage Technologies
Seagate
Tom’s Hardware
AnandTech
StorageIO
The Tech Report

by Angela Miller
This week the ecology.IT blog officially moved to a web hosting service that is 100% solar-powered. GreenestHost.com was featured in Ted Samson’s blog 2 weeks ago and officially came online on August 6, 2007.

A couple of things impressed me about this company:

• They worked closely with vendors including AMD, VMWare, and Freus, to ensure they both chose the right technology and configured it appropriately for optimal energy efficiency and cooling.
• They worked with a mature company (AISO) to develop a web-hosting service built on a solid foundation.
• They deployed a solar environment that is self-sufficient and integrated with a battery system for use at night.

While this is not an endorsement or recommendation that everyone should switch to Greenesthost.com as a service provider, it does highlight that there is business sense in establishing and offering green computing technologies.

In spite of all the other science that precedes it, this study will likely be the impetus for the US to consider stricter rules on energy efficiency for information technology devices. The legislation passed yesterday regarding renewable electricity and new taxes on oil heralds other changes likely to come from the US Congress. Regardless of the whims of Washington, the EPA report confirms the need for companies large and small to substantively change IT strategies.

Consider the report’s discussion of power density issues:

Increasing power density can lead to a situation in which companies are forced to build new data centers not because they are running out of floor space but because they need power and cooling beyond what can be provided in their existing data centers. This situation has driven much of the recent interest in energy-efficiency improvements for data centers. If the power consumed (and resulting heat generated) in data centers can be reduced through energy-efficiency measures, the existing infrastructure can continue to meet cooling and power needs, and costly investments in new data centers can be deferred. (USEPA, 2007)

The report highlights simple changes that IT Departments could implement today without significant investment beyond operational changes – many of which echo strategies discussed in previous ecology.IT posts:

• Consolidation
• Retirement of Unused Legacy Equipment
• Enabling current power management tools on all servers and storage devices
• Replacement of equipment with newer, more energy efficient devices through attrition over time
• Shifting of equipment for optimal airflow management

In their estimate, these simple operational changes could result in a 20% energy savings relative to current trends. A 20% change right to the company’s bottom line with primarily operational strategies.

Over the next few weeks we will investigate some of the proposed “best-practice” and “state-of-the-art” changes proposed in the EPA study. They assert that by implementing these strategies we could save up to 55% of the current energy forecast.

Dig deeper on the issues:

I relied on the following sites for analysis in support of this post:

US EPA Final Report on Server and Data Center Energy Efficiency
New York Times Article on Energy Bill

Pondering these statistics lead to a conversation about the economics of energy efficiency and the business case for green computing. From Mr. Merrill’s perspective, the business case for the typical CIO would be built on cost savings from energy efficiency, cooling optimization, and from the floor space savings that could be realized from implementing a sustainable infrastructure strategy.

“CIOs typically choose energy efficiency not for moral consciousness or being chic or trendy, but because it makes economic sense”. — David Merrill

My thoughts went to challenging information technology departments to take green computing further than the straight energy costs and how instead to sell the business case for environmental benefits. His response was realistic: environmental benefits tend to be in addition to the bottom line economics, either through compliance with laws, or certification, or deferring spending on future solutions. In other words, for a CIO, environmental choices would rarely justify a business case on their own.

We talked about hybrid vehicle sales in the United States as a case study: while some individuals invested in hybrid vehicles purely as an environmental statement; the sales of hybrids, especially in states like California, really escalated when the gas prices rose substantially and drove consumers to make practical, economic choices.

In some parts of the world, especially in Europe or in densely-populated small regions like New England, Singapore, and Hong Kong for example, CIOs will start to face the reality that energy prices will drive up their IT budgets substantially. The local energy utility may either charge escalating utility rates or be unable to deliver energy to meet the company’s growing demands.

For these CIOs, the challenges of space, power, and cooling constraints drive them to consider green computing strategies to squeeze the maximum benefit from their infrastructure. So like the substantial growth in purchases of hybrid vehicles accompanied substantial increases in gasoline prices, so too will green computing initiatives likely increase as IT teams strategize to overcome their energy, space, and cooling challenges and their unsustainable consumption model.

Dig deeper on the issues:

Storage.ITworld.com article on David Merrill
*I am a former employee of HDS. This post is in no way affiliated with HDS.

So I was excited to see this story and to find links to other analysis performed by Tom’s Hardware and Anandtech. The conclusion of all three: AMD beats Intel on a strict energy efficiency metric. Add heat generation into the mix and the numbers shift more impressively in AMD’s favor.

What is of greater interest to me is how an IT Manager might use this analysis in making the decision on what to purchase if they were concerned about greening their IT department. As a former IT Manager I would find it difficult to make a business case one way or another based on these studies. While the new AMD chips could save you an estimated $90/yr per server, most organizations would not make an investment choice based on this one number.

The Tom’s Hardware study makes a good point:

The CPU is not the only component that makes a PC energy efficient. Choose the wrong motherboard or power supply and the most energy efficient processor in the world won’t do a bit of good.

Dig deeper on the issues:

I relied on the following sites for analysis in support of this post:

Ted Samson’s Infoworld Sustainable IT Blog
Tom’s Hardware
Anandtech

by Angela Miller

Needless to say the Internet is atwitter today over this announcement. It is easy to be impressed. First of all they were able to negotiate a consortium of big name players to commit to the mission of Climate Savers: IBM, Microsoft, Dell, Intel, EDS, even the EPA and the World Wildlife Fund. They have the right balance of big-name technology vendors, government, and nonprofit to kick it off. Google already demonstrated a commitment to reach further than corporate acquisition of carbon offsets, for instance, with their construction of solar energy capacity, fleet of clean vehicles, and locally-sourced food in their corporate cafeteria. The fact that Mr. Weihl’s title on his blog is “green energy czar” is testimony to the seriousness with which they are approaching their greening initiatives. They have the legitimacy and power of a positive corporate brand behind it. And they have people talking – which can only be good.

Not every company will put this kind of emphasis on their environmental responsibility. But Google is an excellent example of what can be accomplished at the corporate level. They clearly have a thought-leadership position for greening of corporate operations.

For companies that want to take smaller steps, Mr. Weihl makes some great points in his post about the efficiency and optimization of current resources – for example power saving features on existing personal computers. How small steps toward optimizing current technology resources could have significant energy savings for the typical company.

Having big-named players demonstrate their commitment to the environment in such progressive and economically-justifiable ways gives me hope that other companies will see the value in taking even small steps toward greening their technology.

Dig deeper on the issues:

I relied on the following sites for analysis in support of this post:

Bill Weihl’s Official Google Blog Post
ITWire
PodTech audio announcement of Climate Savers
NetworkWorld
Wall Street Journal