Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power
On 6/14/06, Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since power consumption was a topic at the last NANOG meeting. subscription required, or buy a copy of the Wall Street Journal from a newstand http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115016534015978590.html Surge in Internet Use, Energy Costs Has Big Tech Firms Seeking Power By KEVIN J. DELANEY and REBECCA SMITH Wall Street Journal June 13, 2006; Page A1 With both Internet services and power costs soaring, big technology companies are scouring the nation to secure enough of the cheap electricity that is vital to their growth. The search is being led by companies including Microsoft Corp., Yahoo Inc. and IAC/InterActiveCorp. Big Internet firms have been adding thousands of computer servers to data centers to handle heavy customer use of their services, including ambitious new offerings such as online video. [...] And, just to be fair, Google gets their own bit of news on the power front: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/13/business/search.php I wonder just how much power it takes to cool 450,000 servers. Matt
BGP Update Report
BGP Update Report Interval: 02-Jun-06 -to- 15-Jun-06 (14 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS4637 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS912126646 2.2% 72.4 -- TTNET TTnet Autonomous System 2 - AS25543 19041 1.6% 544.0 -- FASONET-AS ONATEL/FasoNet's Autonomous System 3 - AS13127 15976 1.3% 339.9 -- VERSATEL AS for the Trans-European Versatel IP Transport backbone 4 - AS11492 15349 1.3% 27.1 -- CABLEONE - CABLE ONE 5 - AS701815005 1.3% 9.9 -- ATT-INTERNET4 - ATT WorldNet Services 6 - AS17974 14094 1.2% 34.6 -- TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA 7 - AS10139 11847 1.0% 50.2 -- MERIDIAN-PH-AP Meridian Telekoms 8 - AS20115 10714 0.9% 22.0 -- CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications 9 - AS243269875 0.8% 224.4 -- TTT-AS-AP TTT Public Company Limited, Service Provider,Bangkok 10 - AS4323 9334 0.8% 7.1 -- TWTC - Time Warner Telecom, Inc. 11 - AS6830 9205 0.8% 73.1 -- UPC UPC Broadband 12 - AS3475 9020 0.8% 375.8 -- LANT-AFLOAT - NCTAMS LANT DET HAMPTON ROADS 13 - AS5803 8723 0.7% 94.8 -- DDN-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 14 - AS195488474 0.7% 19.0 -- ADELPHIA-AS2 - Adelphia 15 - AS4837 8375 0.7% 30.9 -- CHINA169-BACKBONE CNCGROUP China169 Backbone 16 - AS3462 7838 0.7% 191.2 -- HINET Data Communication Business Group 17 - AS175577759 0.7% 19.3 -- PKTELECOM-AS-AP Pakistan Telecom 18 - AS156117614 0.6% 74.6 -- Iranian Research Organisation 19 - AS702 7577 0.6% 10.1 -- AS702 MCI EMEA - Commercial IP service provider in Europe 20 - AS7011 7363 0.6% 11.2 -- FRONTIER-AND-CITIZENS - Frontier Communications, Inc. TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS (Updates per announced prefix) Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS3043 2882 0.2%2882.0 -- AMPHIB-AS - Amphibian Media Corporation 2 - AS368774198 0.3%2099.0 -- MWEB_AFRICA-NAMIBIA 3 - AS398631339 0.1%1339.0 -- CROSSNET Crossnet LLC 4 - AS353792412 0.2%1206.0 -- EASYNET EASYNET s.c. 5 - AS199823943 0.3% 985.8 -- TOWERSTREAM-PROV - Towerstream 6 - AS34378 863 0.1% 863.0 -- RUG-AS Razguliay-UKRROS Group 7 - AS4678 3013 0.2% 753.2 -- FINE CANON NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS INC. 8 - AS21027 714 0.1% 714.0 -- ASN-PARADORES PARADORES Autonomous System 9 - AS260151324 0.1% 662.0 -- THINKORSWIM - Thinkorswim inc 10 - AS25680 658 0.1% 658.0 -- EMUNET-HBGVA - Eastern Mennonite University 11 - AS7013 1179 0.1% 589.5 -- NETSELECT - Health Sciences Libraries Consortium 12 - AS24896 560 0.1% 560.0 -- UKRINTELL-AS IntellCOM Provider LIR, Kiev, Ukraine Northern Nowhere 13 - AS25543 19041 1.6% 544.0 -- FASONET-AS ONATEL/FasoNet's Autonomous System 14 - AS36897 531 0.0% 531.0 -- AEROSAT 15 - AS219441532 0.1% 510.7 -- DTSI-1 - Data Technology Services Inc. 16 - AS36565 490 0.0% 490.0 -- COUNTY-OF-MONTGOMERY-PA - County of Montgomery 17 - AS25690 920 0.1% 460.0 -- MAMSI - Mid Atlantic Medical Services Inc. 18 - AS144102164 0.2% 432.8 -- DALTON - MCM, Inc., DBA: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 19 - AS15755 419 0.0% 419.0 -- ISPRO Autonomous System Izmir,TURKEY 20 - AS23917 783 0.1% 391.5 -- BRIBIE-NET-AS-AP Bribie Island Net Multihomed, Brisbane TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name 1 - 152.74.0.0/16 4204 0.3% AS11340 -- Red Universitaria Nacional 2 - 81.212.125.0/243699 0.3% AS9121 -- TTNET TTnet Autonomous System 3 - 81.212.124.0/243571 0.3% AS9121 -- TTNET TTnet Autonomous System 4 - 81.212.141.0/243221 0.2% AS9121 -- TTNET TTnet Autonomous System 5 - 81.212.149.0/243019 0.2% AS9121 -- TTNET TTnet Autonomous System 6 - 61.0.0.0/8 3010 0.2% AS4678 -- FINE CANON NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS INC. 7 - 209.140.24.0/242882 0.2% AS3043 -- AMPHIB-AS - Amphibian Media Corporation 8 - 196.47.64.0/22 2131 0.1% AS36877 -- MWEB_AFRICA-NAMIBIA 9 - 196.47.68.0/22 2067 0.1% AS36877 -- MWEB_AFRICA-NAMIBIA 10 - 195.175.82.0/231966 0.1% AS9121 -- TTNET TTnet Autonomous System 11 - 209.160.56.0/221858 0.1% AS14361 -- HOPONE-DCA - HopOne Internet Corporation 12 - 203.112.154.0/24 1576 0.1% AS17783 -- SRILRPG-AS SRIL RPG Autonomous System 13 - 81.89.208.0/20 1339 0.1% AS39863 -- CROSSNET Crossnet LLC 14 - 65.175.45.0/24 1322 0.1% AS26015 -- THINKORSWIM - Thinkorswim
The Cidr Report
This report has been generated at Fri Jun 16 21:44:51 2006 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date PrefixesCIDR Agg
09-06-06185377 122694
10-06-06185888 122675
11-06-06185880 122645
12-06-06186562 122682
13-06-06186589 122839
14-06-06186781 122749
15-06-06186645 122928
16-06-06186927 122821
AS Summary
22375 Number of ASes in routing system
9381 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix
1463 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS
AS7018 : ATT-INTERNET4 - ATT WorldNet Services
91629056 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s)
AS721 : DISA-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center
Aggregation Summary
The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only
when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as
to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also
proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes').
--- 16Jun06 ---
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
Table 18 1228386382834.2% All ASes
AS4323 1313 268 104579.6% TWTC - Time Warner Telecom,
Inc.
AS4134 1231 293 93876.2% CHINANET-BACKBONE
No.31,Jin-rong Street
AS18566 943 158 78583.2% COVAD - Covad Communications
Co.
AS4755 936 219 71776.6% VSNL-AS Videsh Sanchar Nigam
Ltd. Autonomous System
AS721 1017 317 70068.8% DISA-ASNBLK - DoD Network
Information Center
AS22773 662 47 61592.9% CCINET-2 - Cox Communications
Inc.
AS6197 1011 480 53152.5% BATI-ATL - BellSouth Network
Solutions, Inc
AS7018 1463 948 51535.2% ATT-INTERNET4 - ATT WorldNet
Services
AS19916 563 65 49888.5% ASTRUM-0001 - OLM LLC
AS855550 64 48688.4% CANET-ASN-4 - Aliant Telecom
AS17488 519 63 45687.9% HATHWAY-NET-AP Hathway IP Over
Cable Internet
AS3602 525 104 42180.2% AS3602-RTI - Rogers Telecom
Inc.
AS9498 560 152 40872.9% BBIL-AP BHARTI BT INTERNET
LTD.
AS18101 414 29 38593.0% RIL-IDC Reliance Infocom Ltd
Internet Data Centre,
AS15270 430 51 37988.1% AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec.net -a
division of
PaeTecCommunications, Inc.
AS17676 488 109 37977.7% JPNIC-JP-ASN-BLOCK Japan
Network Information Center
AS11492 632 273 35956.8% CABLEONE - CABLE ONE
AS4766 657 307 35053.3% KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom
AS22047 418 75 34382.1% VTR BANDA ANCHA S.A.
AS812370 30 34091.9% ROGERS-CABLE - Rogers Cable
Inc.
AS6467 391 52 33986.7% ESPIRECOMM - Xspedius
Communications Co.
AS16852 354 50 30485.9% FOCAL-CHICAGO - Focal Data
Communications of Illinois
AS8151 706 405 30142.6% Uninet S.A. de C.V.
AS19262 665 370 29544.4% VZGNI-TRANSIT - Verizon
Internet Services Inc.
AS14654 292 15 27794.9% WAYPORT - Wayport
AS3352 306 30 27690.2% TELEFONICA-DATA-ESPANA
Internet Access Network of
TDE
AS5668 528 252 27652.3% AS-5668 - CenturyTel Internet
Holdings, Inc.
AS6198 508 241 26752.6% BATI-MIA - BellSouth Network
Solutions, Inc
AS9583 902 636 26629.5% SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited
AS9929 328 66 26279.9% CNCNET-CN China
Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power
I wonder just how much power it takes to cool 450,000 servers. I've heard mumbles that the per kWh rates from Bonneville in the locations along the Columbia are in the sub-4¢ range. Grant county is seeing a huge fiber building boom as a result. It will be more wired up than King county soon. Woody was here last night and remarked (feel free to correct me if I misquote you Bill) that it was funny that nowadays network geeks were more interested in kilowatts than kilobits --chuck (in Seattle)
Weekly Routing Table Report
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. Daily listings are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 17 Jun, 2006 Analysis Summary BGP routing table entries examined: 190702 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 104856 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 93265 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 22466 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 19551 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:9367 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:2915 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 64 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 3.5 Max AS path length visible: 24 Max AS path prepend of ASN (34527) 16 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 2 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 3 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 9 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 1534135784 Equivalent to 91 /8s, 113 /16s and 13 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 41.4 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 59.9 Percentage of available address space allocated: 69.1 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 94488 APNIC Region Analysis Summary - Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:40854 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 16870 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 38588 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:18534 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:2608 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:747 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:393 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:3.5 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 18 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 233227360 Equivalent to 13 /8s, 230 /16s and 196 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 72.9 APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911 APNIC Address Blocks 58/7, 60/7, 121/8, 122/7, 124/7, 126/8, 202/7 210/7, 218/7, 220/7 and 222/8 ARIN Region Analysis Summary Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 97971 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:57841 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks:71955 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 26768 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:10771 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:4056 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 984 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 3.3 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 18 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 294035456 Equivalent to 17 /8s, 134 /16s and 160 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 76.2 ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106 (pre-ERX allocations) 2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829, 2880-3153 3354-4607, 4865-5119, 5632-6655, 6912-7466 7723-8191, 10240-12287, 13312-15359, 16384-17407 18432-20479, 21504-23551, 25600-26591, 26624-27647, 29696-30719, 31744-33791 35840-36863, 39936-40959 ARIN Address Blocks24/8, 63/8, 64/5, 72/6, 76/8, 199/8, 204/6, 208/7 and 216/8 RIPE Region Analysis Summary Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 38101 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation:25513 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks:35116 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 23752 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 8167 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:4291 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:1354 Average RIPE Region AS
NANOG 37 (San Jose) - Lost Found
Found: white Apple power cord in the back of the General Session room on Wednesday morning.
Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power
450,000 * 100 WT (power itself) Cooling - I donot know, but I should estimate it as extra 70% of consumed power. So, 450,000 * 0.2KWT = 90,000KWT. - Original Message - From: chuck goolsbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nanog@merit.edu Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:47 AM Subject: Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power I wonder just how much power it takes to cool 450,000 servers. I've heard mumbles that the per kWh rates from Bonneville in the locations along the Columbia are in the sub-4¢ range. Grant county is seeing a huge fiber building boom as a result. It will be more wired up than King county soon. Woody was here last night and remarked (feel free to correct me if I misquote you Bill) that it was funny that nowadays network geeks were more interested in kilowatts than kilobits --chuck (in Seattle)
Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power
I wonder just how much power it takes to cool 450,000 servers. 450,000 servers * 100 Watts/Server = 45,000,000 watts / 3.413 watts/ BTU = 13.1 Million BTU / 12000 BTU/Ton = 1100 Tons of cooling A 30 Ton Liebert system runs about 80 amps @ 480 volts or 38400 watts, you'll need at least 40 or them to cool 1100 tons which is 1536 Kw * 24 hours * 7 days * 4.3 weeks = 1,110,000 KwH/month * $0.10/ KwH = $111,000 /month in cooling. I think my math is right on this... -- Matthew S. Crocker Vice President Crocker Communications, Inc. Internet Division PO BOX 710 Greenfield, MA 01302-0710 http://www.crocker.com
Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Matthew Crocker wrote: I wonder just how much power it takes to cool 450,000 servers. 450,000 servers * 100 Watts/Server = 45,000,000 watts / 3.413 watts/BTU = 13.1 Million BTU / 12000 BTU/Ton = 1100 Tons of cooling Error: you MULTIPLY 3.413 to go from watts to BTU, not divide. It's be more like 154,000,000 BTU, /12000 or 12,798 tons. Also at 100 watts, you are assuming Celerons with single hard drives. We see more like 120 to 240 depending on config. 100 would be low. A 30 Ton Liebert system runs about 80 amps @ 480 volts or 38400 watts, you'll need at least 40 or them to cool 1100 tons which is 1536 Kw * 24 hours * 7 days * 4.3 weeks = 1,110,000 KwH/month * $0.10/KwH = $111,000 /month in cooling. 80 amps @ 480 is 80 * 480 * 1.73, or 66 kw. However, they don't draw that much. A 30 ton unit, worst case (115 degrees outside across the condensor) will be about 50 kw, assuming you do not have humidification or reheats turned on. Second issue: you are assuming 100% cooling efficiency, or, in other words, that you'd have perfect airflow, perfect air return, etc. Never happens, especially when you have customers who are idiots. Third issue: you are assuming there is no heat loss or gain in the structure of the building. This could be very significant. Let's assume it's not. It's likely in an environment like this, you'd have more like 14000 tons. 14000 / 30 = 466 units, @ 50 kw/unit, 23,300,000 watts, / 1000 * 24 * 30.4375 (avg days in a month) = 17,020,000 kw-hrs, @ $0.12 (more likely with todays fuel prices unless you are in Kentucky) $2,042,400/month. Also, don't forget the original 450,000 servers at 100 watts (45 mw) would be $3,944,700/month in power. Also, 450,000 1U servers at 40/rack would be 11,250 racks, which at 10 sq-ft a rack would be 112,000 sq-ft of datacenter floor space (triple or, more likely, quadruple that for space for HVAC, generators, switchgear, UPSs, etc). That'd be 500,000 sq-ft at minimum. Total is $5,987,000/mon, but you haven't ROIed the millions in electrical gear (think big: this is about 68 megawatts; $250k/each for a 2 mw generator (you'd need 40, $10 mm), $50k/each for a 500 kva UPS (you'd need 80 $4mm), millions in panels, breakers, piping, copper wire (700% increase in copper pricing in the last 24 months, people), etc. Oh, and 466 liebert 30 ton HVAC's, probably $25 to $40k/ea installed ($11 million). Oh, and no one has installed it yet, and you haven't paid rent on the facility that will take 2 years to build with probably 100's of workers saleries. Take $6mm/month, divide by 450,000 servers, $13.33/month/server. Oh, and 68 Megawatts over 112k ft of floor space is 607 watts/ft. Thats about 6 times what most centers built in the last couple years are built at. But wait, there is more. Just a point of comparison -- Oyster Creek Nuclear Power generation plant, located here on the Jersey Shore, produces 636 megawatts. You'd take one-tenth of that capacity -- in a bulding that would sit on a 10 or 20 acre chunk of land. I put this into the 'unlikely' category. The substation alone to handle stepping 68 mwatts from transmission to 480v would be probably 4 acres. And, 68 megawatts of power at 480 volts 81,888 amps. A typicall 200,000 sq-ft multi-tenant office building has 1600 amps of service; this would be the equivalent of 50 buildings. Having fun yet? A 30 ton liebert takes about 30 sq-ft of floor space; 466 of them would be 13,980 sq-ft. If you use a drycooler system, they are about 100 sq-ft, and youd need 233 of them (60 ton DDNT940's), 23,300 sq-ft of roof space. Each of those weighs 2,640 pounds, for a total of 615,000 pounds, or 308 tons (of weight, not HVAC capacity). I won't even spend the CPU cycles figuring out how many gallons of glycol this would bem but probably a good guess would be about 50,000 gallons. That'd be about a quarter-million dollars in glycol. I'm tired now, time to climb back in my hole. In other words, don't get me started on the datacenter density issue. -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net
Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power
--On June 16, 2006 5:24:27 PM -0400 Alex Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But wait, there is more. Just a point of comparison -- Oyster Creek Nuclear Power generation plant, located here on the Jersey Shore, produces 636 megawatts. You'd take one-tenth of that capacity -- in a bulding that would sit on a 10 or 20 acre chunk of land. I put this into the 'unlikely' category. The substation alone to handle stepping 68 mwatts from transmission to 480v would be probably 4 acres. And, 68 megawatts of power at 480 volts 81,888 amps. A typicall 200,000 sq-ft multi-tenant office building has 1600 amps of service; this would be the equivalent of 50 buildings. Having fun yet? I happen to know that a very large power line project was just finished in that area :) (I have family that works for the company that did the job). It's a huge amount of power that's for sure. I'm not sure what the exact route was, nor the endpoint right now, but when I did ask him at the time it didn't make senseNow it might. I'll talk to him again.
Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power
On 6/16/2006 at 2:24 PM, Alex Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Matthew Crocker wrote: I wonder just how much power it takes to cool 450,000 servers. 450,000 servers * 100 Watts/Server = 45,000,000 watts / 3.413 watts/BTU = 13.1 Million BTU / 12000 BTU/Ton = 1100 Tons of cooling Error: you MULTIPLY 3.413 to go from watts to BTU, not divide. It's be more like 154,000,000 BTU, /12000 or 12,798 tons. Well, the bigger problem here is that a watt is a measure of power (engergy/time) and a BTU is a unit of energy. There is no dimensionless conversion factor between the two. -- Crist J. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Globalstar Communications(408) 933-4387 B¼information contained in this e-mail message is confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered: I wonder just how much power it takes to cool 450,000 servers. . KwH = $111,000 /month in cooling. I don't know the area; but gather it's hydro territory? How about water-source heat pumps? It's lots easier to cool 25C air into say 10-15C water than into 30C outside air. Open loop water source systems do have their issues [algae, etc] but can save a lot of power -- A host is a host from coast to [EMAIL PROTECTED] no one will talk to a host that's close[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead20915-1433
Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power
David Lesher wrote: Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered: I wonder just how much power it takes to cool 450,000 servers. . KwH = $111,000 /month in cooling. I don't know the area; but gather it's hydro territory? How about water-source heat pumps? It's lots easier to cool 25C air into say 10-15C water than into 30C outside air. Open loop water source systems do have their issues [algae, etc] but can save a lot of power The Dalles, OR is on the Columbia River just upriver of Portland by 80 miles or so. It has a large dam spanning what used to be Celilo Falls in it's front yard. Hydro territory doesn't even begin to define it... :-) Eco-freak territory also doesn't begin to define it, so the idea of piping water off the Columbia and returning it even 1/2 degree warmer is a non-starter. I'm amazed they let them put up tall cooling towers in the historic, scenic Columbia River Gorge (sorry, old political battle flashback)
Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Crist Clark wrote: Error: you MULTIPLY 3.413 to go from watts to BTU, not divide. It's be more like 154,000,000 BTU, /12000 or 12,798 tons. Well, the bigger problem here is that a watt is a measure of power (engergy/time) and a BTU is a unit of energy. There is no dimensionless conversion factor between the two. Huh? A Watt has no time constant. A watt is an amount of energy consumed at a moment (ie, a 60 watt light bulb), not an amount of energy over time (like a watt-hour; for instance, a 60 watt light bulb uses 60 watt-hours of power every hour, or 1.44 kwatt-hrs per day). There is a direct correlation between watts and btu's, and that is: watts * 3.413 = btu -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net
Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power
When I made my posting, I didn't know the context was google in Oregon. I missed that somehow. Anyway, the dam referenced below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dalles_Dam And the power generated from the region: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectric_dams_on_the_Columbia_River Seems like a good place to setup a datacenter. On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Jeff Shultz wrote: David Lesher wrote: Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered: I wonder just how much power it takes to cool 450,000 servers. . KwH = $111,000 /month in cooling. I don't know the area; but gather it's hydro territory? How about water-source heat pumps? It's lots easier to cool 25C air into say 10-15C water than into 30C outside air. Open loop water source systems do have their issues [algae, etc] but can save a lot of power The Dalles, OR is on the Columbia River just upriver of Portland by 80 miles or so. It has a large dam spanning what used to be Celilo Falls in it's front yard. Hydro territory doesn't even begin to define it... :-) Eco-freak territory also doesn't begin to define it, so the idea of piping water off the Columbia and returning it even 1/2 degree warmer is a non-starter. I'm amazed they let them put up tall cooling towers in the historic, scenic Columbia River Gorge (sorry, old political battle flashback) -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net
Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power
Alex Rubenstein wrote: Huh? A Watt has no time constant. A watt is an amount of energy consumed at a moment (ie, a 60 watt light bulb), not an amount of energy over time (like a watt-hour; for instance, a 60 watt light bulb uses 60 watt-hours of power every hour, or 1.44 kwatt-hrs per day). There is a direct correlation between watts and btu's, and that is: watts * 3.413 = btu You're confusing Watts and joules. One Watt is one joule of energy per second.
Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Alex Rubenstein wrote: more like 154,000,000 BTU, /12000 or 12,798 tons. Well, the bigger problem here is that a watt is a measure of power (engergy/time) and a BTU is a unit of energy. There is no dimensionless conversion factor between the two. Huh? A Watt has no time constant. A watt is an amount of energy consumed at a moment (ie, a 60 watt light bulb), not an amount of energy over time (like a watt-hour; for instance, a 60 watt light bulb uses 60 watt-hours of power every hour, or 1.44 kwatt-hrs per day). Since you like Wikipedia so much, why don't you look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt Watt is not amount of power but amount of power produced during time, i.e. its speed of energy consumption. However kwatt-hour (I've never heard of watt-hour, but I suppose that maybe used too..) is actually amount of energy consumed - more precisely X kwr its how much energy device would consume if it were consuming energy at exactly the same speed of X kw for entire hour. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power
Once upon a time, Alex Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: There is a direct correlation between watts and btu's, and that is: watts * 3.413 = btu No, that's wrong. $ units 2438 units, 71 prefixes, 32 nonlinear units You have: watt You want: btu conformability error 1 kg m^2 / s^3 1055.0559 kg m^2 / s^2 You have: watt hour You want: btu * 3.4121416 / 0.29307107 -- Chris Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power
No, that's wrong. $ units 2438 units, 71 prefixes, 32 nonlinear units You have: watt You want: btu conformability error 1 kg m^2 / s^3 1055.0559 kg m^2 / s^2 You have: watt hour You want: btu * 3.4121416 / 0.29307107 Agreed, my math should have said btu/hr, which is what any HVAC system is rated in -- how many btus in an hour it can remove. I apologize for the horrendous error, but all of the math stands. Just sed s/btu/btu\/hr/g (also, you can do from watt to btu/hr with the same 3.413 multiplier) -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net
Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Alex Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: There is a direct correlation between watts and btu's, and that is: watts * 3.413 = btu No, that's wrong. Oh lord. a Watt is equal to one joule of energy per second. Period. a watt/hour is equal to, oh, lets see, 3600 joules consumed in that hour. 1 joule is oh, 0.00094781712 btu according to one chart, .00094845 on another. the math is really straight forward here guys... --- david raistrickhttp://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Crist Clark wrote: Error: you MULTIPLY 3.413 to go from watts to BTU, not divide. It's be more like 154,000,000 BTU, /12000 or 12,798 tons. Well, the bigger problem here is that a watt is a measure of power (engergy/time) and a BTU is a unit of energy. There is no dimensionless conversion factor between the two. Alright, I am sorry I missed that. It should read: Error: you MULTIPLY 3.413 to go from watts to BTU/hr, not divide. It's be more like 154,000,000 BTU/hr, /12000 or 12,798 tons. Sorry! Sheesh. -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net
Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power
watts * 3.413 = btu No, that's wrong. . You have: watt hour You want: btu * 3.4121416 / 0.29307107 Rant: After I get the low-bid subcontract to manage the place; I'm going to set aside a special section Down There just for the HVAC folks who insist on perpetuating that most medieval of units... the BTU. It belongs in the pile of toxic waste that now holds farthings, stone, furlongs, and slugs. Some day, I'll be able to look at EPA Yellow Tags on water heaters and AC's without grinding my teeth.. /Rant -- A host is a host from coast to [EMAIL PROTECTED] no one will talk to a host that's close[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead20915-1433
Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power
David Lesher wrote: I don't know the area; but gather it's hydro territory? How about water-source heat pumps? It's lots easier to cool 25C air into say 10-15C water than into 30C outside air. Open loop water source systems do have their issues [algae, etc] but can save a lot of power If you drill a vertical hole in the order of 50-200 meters deep, the cooling effect of water pumped through a pipe in that hole is in the order of 50W/m. So you can lose 10kW of heat into 200 meter hole. Not sure what the separation needs to be for this to be sustainable. Pretty good return on investment, considering drilling a hole is $3k-$6k. Pete
RE: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power
This article talks about power and costs: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06164/697875-96.stm Interesting the power today is being used for cold storage and Aluminum plants because it is so cheap. Christian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of chuck goolsbee Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:48 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power I wonder just how much power it takes to cool 450,000 servers. I've heard mumbles that the per kWh rates from Bonneville in the locations along the Columbia are in the sub-4¢ range. Grant county is seeing a huge fiber building boom as a result. It will be more wired up than King county soon. Woody was here last night and remarked (feel free to correct me if I misquote you Bill) that it was funny that nowadays network geeks were more interested in kilowatts than kilobits --chuck (in Seattle)
Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, David Lesher wrote: who insist on perpetuating that most medieval of units... the BTU. Well, if you do away with that you can continue with the mile as well, then lose the pounds and yards and gallons while you're at it. On the other hand, I have a question I was pondering at the nanog power session (which was a really good one). What is the amount of energy coming out of a server as heat as opposed to what you put in as electricity? My guess would be pretty close to 100%, but is it really so? And I've also been told that you need approx 1/3 of the energy taken out thru cooling to cool it? So that would mean that to sustain a 100W server you really need approx 130-140W of power when cooling is included in the equation. Is this a correct assumption? In one of our data centers we use community cooling, we get 4 C (I think it was approx 4 C) degree water and we're required to heat it at least by 8 C before we return it, this is then used in the community power plant to produce hot community water, and this process I've been told is quite effective. Any thoughts on this? Guess it doesn't work in the boondocks though... There were also plans to use heat converters to have the cooling water from nuclear power plants heat community hot water, but politicians chickened out. Now we just spew that cooling water straight out into the ocean. I guess none of this makes sense in the southern part of the US, but further up north where houses actually need heating and not cooling most of the year, are things like this done? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power
What is the amount of energy coming out of a server as heat as opposed to what you put in as electricity? My guess would be pretty close to 100%, but is it really so? And I've also been told that you need approx 1/3 of the energy taken out thru cooling to cool it? So that would mean that to sustain a 100W server you really need approx 130-140W of power when cooling is included in the equation. Is this a correct assumption? Based upon my real-world experience, and talking to a few folks, it's very close to 100%. Most assume 100% for the practice of calculating cooling. However, for those who are very scientific, they try to tell you that some of the power is going into movement of hard drive heads, etc., which creates force on your racks, etc. A true, but irrelevant discussion, really, because it's likely an immeasurable amount. One could do the excercise of putting a computer in a well insulated box and measuring power in vs. rate of rise of temperature. Volunteers? :) -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net
Re: WSJ: Big tech firms seeking power
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 07:09:37PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote: Watt is not amount of power but amount of power produced during time, i.e. its speed of energy consumption. Actually, that's the definition of power. (Energy/time) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power A kilowatt-hour is equivalent to 360 joules. --Adam
