[NCLUG] Re: "Green" power.

[John L. Bass]

Sean Reifschneider wrote:
>> high end graphics cards with powerful GPU's complete much higher work
>> units on much lower power. An order of magnitude better work to power
>>     
>
> Since you say you don't run F at H, I'll assume that the above is just
> speculation.
I DID NOT say that I haven't run F at H, and was JUST YOUR POOR SPECULATION.
I did say, that I do not run ANY distributed network application today.

> Because I *DO* run F at H, and *HAVE* actually measured power
> consumption and results.  A modern machine, specifically a Q6600 CPU is
> around 1.2 to 1.4A for the whole system (the CPU is 95W) clocked at the
> outlet with a Kill-a-watt, and it results in around 2k points per day.
>   
I have also measured a large number of desktop and server systems with a 
Kill-a-watt, and many come out in the 150-250W range, like you are 
reporting. There are much lower power Green desktop and server solutions 
in the sub 40W range, and much higher power (not so Green) servers in 
the 900-1200W range, both of which I deploy in my own server farm and 
use as needed and reasonable.  I generally suggest light duty servers 
under 30-40W where possible, and suggest that 150W and greater are 
generally not needed in many applications and should be replaced or 
switched off when not needed. My high end servers have a 60W draw when 
powered down, but still plugged in ... something that wasn't obvious 
until I scanned the power needs of each cluster with the Kill-a-watt.

The actual performance and power of other desktop and server systems 
varies widely, where older systems than yours do not have near the 
performance/power ratio ... so blind advocacy of F at H really needs to be 
tempered with a realistic look at individual systems.

> A PS-3 uses around 100W (latest generation) or 200W (earlier models), to
> produce around 1k points per day.
>
> Points represent the value of your contributions to the F at H project.
>
> This is part of why I have 5 times the points of the number 2 hacking
> society team member with only twice the number of units -- the PC work
> units are just more valuable to the project.
>   
You clearly make my point, that other's systems do not have the high 
performance/power ratio you claim. Because of that, I stand by my point 
that it's irresponsible to use older power hungry systems with 
relatively poor performance ... something that should be left to Green 
systems responsibly using our natural resources.

Actually the F at H point system changes between their sub-projects and the 
degree you commit your machines resources to their project, so your 
simple example of points/performance is only a small part of how they 
award work points today, and in the future.
> As far as your talk about how coal fired plants cause all these problems
> and solar and other alternative energy sources provide an insignificant
> contribution, that just goes to support the point I was making.  Since you
> really haven't brought up any significant rebuttal to my previous message,
> I won't really address it any further than to reiterate:
>   
My rebuttal is clear ... stop using systems that just waste energy ... 
period. You have claimed your own newer systems as an exception, and 
clearly acknowledge that others systems do not have near the same 
performance.
> Conservation is a simple answer to a complex question.  Conservation is
> good, but not when it's done as just a band-aid and the real problem is
> ignored.  Running F at H is contributing significantly to serious research.
> My opinion is that it's more part of the solution set than the problem set.
>
> Sitting (literally) in the dark, twiddling your thumbs, trying to stretch
> out the coal supply, is *NOT* helping make the world a better place.
>
> Sean
>   
Ignoring conservation is also just sitting in the dark and twiddling 
your thumbs, and is *NOT* making the world a better place at all. 
Suggesting that obsolete power hungry machines be given a second life 
doing distributed network computing *IS* doing exactly the wrong thing 
.... just like suggesting that oil/energy isn't a problem and everyone 
should drive gas guzzling machines.

Suggesting that electricity is clean and plentiful, is well, less than 
informed. The number of eco freaks with that objective to blame oil for 
everything that is wrong is increasing ... so some focus on using 
electricity responsibly is well in order these days. Especially when 
generated with coal.

John