ben lipkowitz wrote:
> A typical desktop will draw about 60W when idle, and a typical laptop
> will draw 25W at idle. Let's face it, most computers are idle most of
> the time. Both types of computers draw near zero when in sleep or
> standby mode. Many computers are not configured by default to use sleep
> mode, and people are not going to figure out how to enable it. Then
> there is the short delay in starting up which leads many people to turn
> off this feature. A computer could "learn" its user's habits so that it
> will already be started up by the time they wanted to use it. So, this
> is a software problem really.
I disagree. There is definitely a software variable in this equation,
but do we need to be drawing 60W for an idle computer, when we could be
drawing 5W for an active computer? No amount of software hacking will
make that change.
In the move to alternative energy sources, there are many variables in
the equation. Software is one. Hardware is one. Power supply efficiency
is one. The efficiency of solar cells, wind turbines, hydro-electric
dams in creating the energy. The inefficiency of transmitting that
energy long distances and the need to decentralize power generation.
Human habit is the biggest.
We need to examine every single Watt in and every single Watt out,
because spread across 5 billion humans, every Watt matters tremendously.
The world will not step into the light (to borrow from a famous science
fiction writer) until it is not only economically feasible to do so, but
economically stupid not to.
Let's ignore the environmental impact of every single Watt we use. What
about getting computing up and working in places off the grid? Places
where you might have a solar panel or a guy running a bicycle (it's
happening) to generate all the power for miles around. Do you use a
computer that draws 60W when it isn't doing anything? Or twelve
computers that draw 60W collectively when twelve people are using them
to learn, to connect, to communicate, to drive business, to create
art...to get lost in the Wikipedia?
Chris Colvard wrote:
> I was thinking about this awhile ago. Now think of these thin-client
> front ends being provided by an ISP with the ISP providing online
> storage space and the typical apps people use (Word Processor,
> Spreadsheet, etc.) as AJAX applications (or something else hosted). If
> the ISP owns the thin-client then a subscriber doesn't have to manage
> software or buy new computers and the ISP probably gets a much easier
> support environment since the thin-client's only function is connecting
> to the ISP's servers. Thoughts?
One thought: http://www.koolu.com/
Incidentally, less than 10 Watts, running full force.
Mark Krenz wrote:
> That's not right. Sorry Simon, nothing personal, but he's off on
> those figures. He's using big numbers to wow people and I think that's
> a bad thing to do. He should use real figures.
Ack! It would lose the power of simplicity, get boring, and still make
the same point (only to a less engaged audience) if he tried to make a
scientifically accurate estimate up on stage. It was a numbers game, not
an objective statistic, and I felt that was made clear.
We could go through the intellectual exercise of coming up with a more
accurate figure, but you have to admit, we'd be off on that as well.
I'm sure the figure we're tossing around here of 60W for an idle
computer could be analyzed further, but that would detract from the
basic point of the conversation, which is not an intellectual exercise
in computer power usage; at least it isn't for me.
The basic point of this conversation, at least insofar as what I said
regarding computer power consumption is that computers as we know them
today are inefficient and impractical for use outside of a first-world
infrastructure, as we look towards inviting previously unrepresented
folks into the global digital world.
Which also happened to be the basic point of maddog's talk.
> Still, I know what he's getting at and conservation
> is a good thing so its good to think about.
Well, what he's getting at is that it's more than just "a good thing",
it's unavoidable as we look towards the future of technology.
In my opinion, beyond the future of technology, it's a matter of
survival for me and my family, you all.
> Sorry for being down on him
> but I would have thought Maddog would be more careful with his
> statistics than that. I mean, people quote him.
Yeah, you're probably right, though I'd be surprised if anyone quotes
his number game as an authoritative fact.
It was certainly useful in bring this list to life. ;-)
> Now let's say I have a Xen server that has enough RAM and CPU power to
> host 64 machines (16 GB of RAM and 8 cores would do nicely). This
> machine has a 700 Watt power supply. With all the virtual machines
> running it would use a maximum of 700 watts, maybe even less. There
> would be a little more latency overall, but the average watt usage per
> virtual machine is only 11 watts.
Precisely my point.
However, drop the Xen server. Add an LTSP server, and you can probably
server somewhere in the 200 or more thin-clients at less than 5 watts
per, add less than 10 watts for a Koolu thin-client front end, and
you've got less than 15 watts per workstation. (Leaving out the monitor,
of course...)
That's a dramatic increase in efficiency. And my bet is that the end
users won't notice the fact that they don't have a full workstation's
processor-time at their command. Firefox and OpenOffice would come up
like lightning, since they've already been loaded into memory by one of
the other 200 people sharing that terminal server.
How long would it take for that setup to pay for itself in power
savings? A couple of years?
Say 5 years later, you decide you want to upgrade the system to handle
Ubuntu Pretty Parrot's amazing new on-by-default holographic desktop
environment (humor me), What does it cost to upgrade all 200 of those
workstations? The price of a new server.
And the migration can be done with no disruption, just point the DHCP
server at the new thin-client server, and have everyone turn off their
thin-client at the end of the day.
I think workstations like what we have will only be used by geeks like
us in the not too distant future. People who don't just use computers as
a portal to the Internet are the only people who wouldn't be 100%
satisfied with a thin/thick-client solution.
> Doable and done. Matt Liggett, a former sysadmin at Kiva and the guy
> who wrote the original knowledge base at IU, was working on a program
> for IU that would slave the idle time of desktops into one giant super
> computer. I'm not sure how far he got with it, but I've heard of other
> places doing this before.
Is that the OpenMosix project?
As I understood it, it only worked with specific software. You couldn't,
say, offload any old video encoding or (place random mundane
high-processor-time task here) job yet.
But, yeah, talking to that guy at the IU LinuxFest the year before last
got me thinking about merging a cluster of physical computers into one
processor pool and basically make each of the computers a thin-client to
that collective "machine".
I think that this type of thing has the potential to become big.
Steven Black wrote:
> That sounds like the definition of "Internet Appliance".
*SnIp!* Nod. Well, yeah, what do most people use a computer for?
> In an environment where people expect Desktop-like computers, it is
> likely to be a hard sell. However, if you do what Símon was talking
> about, and go overseas and sell it to an entire building at a time...
> It may be doable, especially if you're dealing with an environment
> in which most people are not expected to have computers at all.
Again, http://www.koolu.com
Check it out.
Joe Auty wrote:
> Perhaps all of this will come to fruition regardless with Google Docs
> and Spreadsheets?
No, seriously ;-) check out http://www.koolu.com that's their whole shtick.
It's a $200 no-moving-parts box, draws less than 10W of power, that can
run full-fledged Ubuntu, except that in order to keep the processor load
low, they suggest you use Google Apps on Firefox rather than load both
Firefox and OpenOffice at the same time. This is also a solution to the
problem of not wanting to have a hard disk locally. You CAN buy a $300
version with a hard drive, but that removes a few of the advantages of
getting a no-moving parts, low-wattage box.
They also work really well as thin-clients, in which case (with a decent
back-end), they'd function almost indistinguishably, on less than 10W,
from a computer that idles at 60W...completely indistinguishably when
it's idle. ;-)
Their main markets are abroad, of course, because we Americans like
driving Hummers.
Anyhow, yeah, I'd like one or two to play with.
Thanks for all the responses, I appreciate this dialog.
Have a good night!
Simón
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
No comments:
Post a Comment