 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/01/2012 10:18 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> Sure. But given that computers are very low-power devices, you don't
> think of a computer plant as something requiring megawatts of power and
> entire rooms of cooling equipment.
I would not say that computers are *very* low-power devices. As it said
in the article the containers have a power consumption that can reach
250 kilowatts. So you only need 4 containers to have to supply a
megawatt of power. Then add the cooling requirements and the utilities
and it all adds up.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/01/2012 11:20 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/01/2012 10:18 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>
>> Sure. But given that computers are very low-power devices, you don't
>> think of a computer plant as something requiring megawatts of power and
>> entire rooms of cooling equipment.
>
> I would not say that computers are *very* low-power devices. As it said
> in the article the containers have a power consumption that can reach
> 250 kilowatts. So you only need 4 containers to have to supply a
> megawatt of power. Then add the cooling requirements and the utilities
> and it all adds up.
Compared to an industrial cement kiln or a smelting works, a computer
uses virtually zero power.
The difference, of course, is that we're not talking about a computer.
We're talking about *thousands* of computers. Much like a light bulb
uses almost no power, but the entire Blackpool illuminations probably
use quite a bit of power...
I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's surprising.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/01/2012 11:31 AM, Invisible wrote:
> I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's surprising.
Why do you think that it is surprising?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/01/2012 01:08 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/01/2012 11:31 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's surprising.
>
> Why do you think that it is surprising?
Or, to put it another way, why do you *not* think it's surprising?
I guess once you already know something, it probably doesn't surprise
you any more...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/01/2012 1:10 PM, Invisible wrote:
> On 20/01/2012 01:08 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 20/01/2012 11:31 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's surprising.
>>
>> Why do you think that it is surprising?
>
> Or, to put it another way, why do you *not* think it's surprising?
>
I have worked in heavy industry and when I worked offshore on production
platforms I was familiar with most aspects of utilities.
> I guess once you already know something, it probably doesn't surprise
> you any more...
That is true but if you stop and think (no slur intended) you might find
on reflection it is not really surprising. It is like doing a quick
mental calculation to see if an answer is in the correct range.
Guesstimate power requirements for 1 server = 200 Watts
Power for 1000 servers in a container (X 1000) 200 KW
Power for 12 containers = 2.4 MW. See no surprise. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I guess once you already know something, it probably doesn't surprise
>> you any more...
>
> That is true but if you stop and think (no slur intended) you might find
> on reflection it is not really surprising. It is like doing a quick
> mental calculation to see if an answer is in the correct range.
> Guesstimate power requirements for 1 server = 200 Watts
> Power for 1000 servers in a container (X 1000) 200 KW
> Power for 12 containers = 2.4 MW. See no surprise. ;-)
I guess the thing is, most people will never, ever see 1000 computers...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:12:41 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> Pictures or it didn't happen. :-P
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRwPSFpLX8I perhaps?
>
> ...the HELL?! o_O
>
> 1. I had no idea they had this many computers.
It hit a number of the sites a couple years ago (see the date on the
video)
> 2. I had no idea it required engineering on this scale to run that many
> computers.
You've got to manage them *somehow*, right?
> 3. That seems like quite a lot of empty space, actually...
You have to circulate air to keep things cool. Overheating in such an
environment could be a serious problem.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 10:18:25 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> Sure. But given that computers are very low-power devices, you don't
> think of a computer plant as something requiring megawatts of power and
> entire rooms of cooling equipment.
I've done work in a 20,000 sq. ft. data center. Data centers are big
business these days.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/20/2012 2:18, Invisible wrote:
> Sure. But given that computers are very low-power devices, you don't think
> of a computer plant as something requiring megawatts of power and entire
> rooms of cooling equipment.
Each of those containers has over 1000 computers in it. There's 50
containers in this one building. (That's a small building for Google.) This
is from 2005 or so, when computers weren't as efficient. So how much power
do you think it takes to run 50,000 computers, plus air conditioning for
them, if each has (say) 150W power supply?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 20/01/2012 18:02, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> > 2. I had no idea it required engineering on this scale to run that many
>> > computers.
> You've got to manage them *somehow*, right?
>
Wondering if they are running MS Windows:
1. Did they get a rebate on number of license ?
2. In case of security update, did they all update & reboot at the same
time ?
Obviously, they are not using Apple's computers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
