Friday, October 12, 2007

Re: [BLUG] NOV meeting topic

Mark Krenz wrote:
> I'm sorry to be a fact Nazi in this, but I think that if we're talking
> about saving the world from predicted environmental disaster based on
> scientific research, then we should use more accurate statistics.

I'm speaking at a higher level than specifics. The fact is we're not
going to get to the exact figures, and even if we could find perfectly
precise figures, I can't see them modifying my point, unless they turn
out to actually contradict me. They would only put a more concrete
figure on the magnitude of the benefits of developing more efficient
computing practices.

Unless it turns out that computers are in fact feeding power into the
electrical grid, there's really no way to argue against coming up with
strategies to deliver computing with less power.

> I found the "Energy efficiency" section of this article interesting:
>
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_power_supply
>
> And this:
>
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency
>
> Computers are much more efficient than I expected. 93% efficiency is
> pretty impressive. So why are we making such a big deal about it? It
> seems that as long as we use our computers for useful things while they
> are on (like writing this email), its not really all that wasteful.

a) 93%-efficient power supplies are available, but they are generally
70-75% at peak according to your article, though this figure only
applies at 50-75% load.

Anything less than or more than that drops this figure, more significant
on the low-load side than the high-load side.

So an idling computer is in fact the least efficient from the
mathematically perspective as well as the fact that it's basically a
power-sucking paperweight.

b) However, let's pretend computers are 100% power efficient.

In this magical world where the power supply is basically just
superconducting power from the grid into the box, it's still more
efficient to write your e-mail on a box that draws less than 10W than
one that must draw 60W if it's staring at the wall (though honestly, I'd
be surprised if an idle computer only drew 60W...I'll have to borrow a
kill-a-watt from work to measure this stuff). You're spending less
energy to get the exact same result.

What is your return on investment for that extra wattage? Wobbly
windows? ;-)

> So in this way, servers are generally not wasting much energy. Its
> obvious that people understand this though because the desktop is where
> all the power saving technologies are like turning off the monitor, hard
> drive sleep, etc.

Servers are the most efficient part of our computer use habits,
depending on how you structure it. This is why my ideal includes big
servers back-ends with the small workstations front-ends.

> Ok, I've rambled on long enough. Scott Blaydes could tell you about
> his dream of having a data center that is solar powered though. :-)

It's definitely doable, and economically advantageous in the long term.

He'll need to figure out how to make enough money with it to pay for the
solar panels in the short-middle term.

He'll also need to carefully calculate the "bang for his buck" of each
power-using component in his data center, as I've been talking about.
He'll want to make sure that every Watt he's spending (and thus every
square inch of expensive solar paneling he needs to have up) is bringing
him more money than it's costing him.

His dream highlights my very points.

I started thinking about this stuff as I considered the possibility of
building a completely power-independent home (and solar power seems the
way to go). I'm a total computer geek, and with the number of computers
I have now, they're a major chunk of my energy needs.

*yawn*

I'm going to bed, ya'll, have a great night!

Simón

P.S. Incidentally, I don't intend to say our computers today need to no
longer be used, throwing them away would have equally if not more
disturbing ecological consequences. I'm simply saying tomorrows
computers can be compacts, motorcycles, bicyles, with the same power as
today's SUVs.
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] NOV meeting topic

On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 04:36:11AM GMT, David Ernst [david.ernst@davidernst.net] said the following:
>
> http://www.industcards.com/ppworld.htm

Actually, that's a pretty cool site.

I'm sorry to be a fact Nazi in this, but I think that if we're talking
about saving the world from predicted environmental disaster based on
scientific research, then we should use more accurate statistics.

> Suppose we wanted to double the number of automobiles in the world.
> We'd likely be looking at something like an 80% increase in power
> consumption. That's a rough estimate based on zero research, but
> whatever the correct number is, it's going to be way way way over 1%.
> And a car takes WAY more energy when it's in use!

The difference is that cars are based on converting something that has
energy in it (Petroleum). Not using energy from a power plant. Never
thought of it this way before, but cars are like mini power plants.

> Says that a ford escort uses 110 horsepower = 82,026 watts. So,
> driving a Ford Escort (my old one used to get about 33 mpg (need I
> point out that the escort is not among the highest performance
> vehicles ever designed?)) for ONE MINUTE is roughly the same power
> consumption of leaving a desktop computer idle (at 60 watts) for ONE
> DAY. The twelve hours of driving I'm planning on this weekend to
> visit my parents will the amount of energy of two years of leaving my
> desktop turned on 24/7. And cars are mobile things with difficult
> emissions control problems. The computers' new power plants could be
> anything from wind farms to fuel cells.

This is why I responded to your email. I realize that obviously the
power output of a car that is turned on is not 0 watts when its in park
or even when you are coasting. Obviously, its consuming fuel. But its
also obviously not producing 82000 watts all the time when its running.
However, it wouldn't be a direct relationship between the rpms of the
engine and the watts it produces. So I'm not sure you could say
something like when you run the engine at 1/4 of full throttle that it
would produce only 82000 watts. I agree with your comparison though,
cars do use a lot more power than computers.

Actually, I think the most effective way to conserve power in regards
to your home computer is to keep them away from your thermostat.
Computers generate quite a bit of heat these days. We have two story
house and the office used to be upstairs with three computers there at
least one was on most of the time. The thermostat was also on that
floor. When I moved the computers downstairs this year and the
temperature in that room dropped 5 degrees F. The extra heat upstairs
in the summer was causing the thermostat to continue to drive the AC and
make the downstairs colder than it should have been. Now with the
computers downstairs, the temperature is more consistent in the house
and probably it helps more in the winter since the heat will rise
through the house a bit. There should be some scientific study to back
this up.

I found the "Energy efficiency" section of this article interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_power_supply

And this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency

Computers are much more efficient than I expected. 93% efficiency is
pretty impressive. So why are we making such a big deal about it? It
seems that as long as we use our computers for useful things while they
are on (like writing this email), its not really all that wasteful.

So in this way, servers are generally not wasting much energy. Its
obvious that people understand this though because the desktop is where
all the power saving technologies are like turning off the monitor, hard
drive sleep, etc.

Ok, I've rambled on long enough. Scott Blaydes could tell you about
his dream of having a data center that is solar powered though. :-)

--
Mark Krenz
Bloomington Linux Users Group
http://www.bloomingtonlinux.org/
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] NOV meeting topic

I'll give you all the money in my pocket for your research. ;-)

On 10/12/07, ben lipkowitz <fenn@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> Who wants to fund my fusion research? I promise to make it open source...
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] NOV meeting topic

Quoting ben lipkowitz <fenn@sdf.lonestar.org>:
>
> Who wants to fund my fusion research? I promise to make it open source...

Fusion, the energy of tomorrow's future?

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] NOV meeting topic

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, "Simón A. Ruiz" wrote:
> So.
>
> We can look at how to generate all that extra energy in an
> environmentally friendly (read: no more carbon output) way.
>
> Not addressing the issue from every angle is tantamount to mass suicide.
>

Who wants to fund my fusion research? I promise to make it open source...

Re: [BLUG] NOV meeting topic

On 10/12/07, Matt Standish <mstandish@gmail.com> wrote:
> No it's not OpenMosix.. It may be condor (someone from my group will
> chime in if I am wrong (At 1:30 I am sure I am wrong :) )) and it can
> run video rendering. Sorta like Seti@home for clustering... I believe
> it has been rewritten since Liggett was involved but the same purpose
> exists.

So, any process can enlist neighbor's help? Like, say I opened 2,000
separate copies of the OOXML standard definition at the same time, it
would offload the processor requirements?

I was under the impression that it only worked with applications that
were specifically written for it to work with.

That's pretty awesome!

Simón

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] NOV meeting topic

David Ernst wrote:
> Dare I say it?
>
> 25 power plants to double the number of computers in the world seems
> like a bargain to me. Looking at:
>
> http://www.industcards.com/ppworld.htm
>
> I roughly counted how many power plants are in the world right now,
> and easily got over 2500. So, a 1% increase in world power plants
> would enable a 100% increase in computers..? That's quite a return on
> investment, and that's using the numbers that seem high by Mark's
> reckoning (which makes sense to me).

> Looking at it another way, apparently Indiana and Ohio together
> produce roughly enough electricity to power all of the worlds
> computers. Probably a little bit short, but... these two states are a
> sliver of the world's land area, and the air here is still clean even
> though we're burning a lot of dirty coal in old plants.

Wait a minute.

Dig a little deeper and check out:
http://www.industcards.com/top-100-pt-1.htm
No 1 - Itaipu 14,750 MW
and http://www.industcards.com/top-100-pt-4.htm
No 100 - Cordemais 3,185 MW

We're not looking at 25 more average power plants (thus 1% increase in
world power consumption), we're looking at 25 more Itaipus, which would
be roughly 370 MW, roughly a little less than the combined output of the
rest of the top 100 power plants on the planet.

And keep in mind that as we bring electricity to the parts of the world
that still lack it, they're not ONLY going to be using it for computing,
that figure only reflects the chunk of the new needed electricity that
computers will be sucking on.

Only 17 power plants currently in the world generate more than 5MW.

Indiana and Ohio together wouldn't make a dent in that figure.

Notice, the top three power plants are all hydroelectric. Itaipu, Three
Gorges, and Guri (incidentally in Venezuela). But we've pretty much set
up all the big hydroelectric dams we can, as far as I can see. Any
reasonable location for a big hydroelectric plant has already been
jumped on or ruled out.

So.

We can look at how to generate all that extra energy in an
environmentally friendly (read: no more carbon output) way.

We can look at how to make our existing power plants less
environmentally offensive (read: carbon sequestration, etc.).

We can look at how to reduce the amount of power we're currently using.

We can look at making future power-using products more and more efficient.

In point of fact we NEED to do ALL of that, if we care at all about what
kind of world our children, and those of the rest of the human race,
will inherit from us.

Not addressing the issue from every angle is tantamount to mass suicide.

> If we want to conserve energy, we're much better off focusing on
> vehicles than computers. Meanwhile, we're probably all drawing more
> power for lighting than we are for computing (60W?!? I've got
> individual light bulbs that draw that much! (though fewer and fewer of
> them)).

Modern first-world energy-consumption patterns are not scalable or
sustainable is the basic point.

Just because computers are less offensive than cars doesn't absolve us
from addressing the computer angle. Every single Watt per person counts.

I'm a computer geek, so I look at the computer angle, and I expect the
car geeks out there to look at the car angle, and the plane geeks to
look it the plane angle, etc.

> Having said all of that, I love the idea of thin clients, and I see it
> as a minor tragedy that they aren't more popular. But, I would focus
> on deploying them in business environments. Gone would be the days of
> people wondering whether to save to their computer or to the
> server... and if their computer broke, just give 'em a new one, have
> them log in, and they're right back in business... Save power? All
> the better!

Thin-client are definitely going to be the norm in business
environments, but is I believe they'd also be useful in the homes of
non-enthusiasts in areas where the ISP can have a nice fat pipe to the
home. An apartment complex, for instance, would be an ideal place for
this sort of thing.

I think the main problem keeping thin-clients from being a big thing is
the market dynamics.

Linux can change the market dynamics.

It may have to be indirectly here. It may have to become the standard
everywhere else to demonstrate it's viability before American industry
even considers jumping the Microsoft full-workstation-per-person/Hummer
ship.

> David

Thanks for your thoughts!

Simón
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] NOV meeting topic

I think someone should add this to Bloomingpedia:

http://www.bloomingpedia.org/

:-)

On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 02:41:01PM GMT, Josh Goodman [jogoodman@gmail.com] said the following:
> It was Condor. I used to use it to run some bioinformatics apps that
> had been deployed on it. I say was because as far as I understand it
> the cluster was end of lifed a year or so ago. The reason I was given
> was that when the windows firewall was rolled out to the student
> clusters they lost the ability to use Condor/SMBL messaging to manage
> jobs/nodes. The student desktop admins didn't want to open up ports
> or something along those lines.
>
> Maybe it is still alive in some other capacity but the public site
> that you used to access it through is no longer in service:
> https://condor.ussg.indiana.edu/ and all the apps that I used to use
> on it are available on AVIDD or Big Red.
>
> Josh
>
>
>
> On 10/12/07, Matt Standish <mstandish@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 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.
> >
> > No it's not OpenMosix.. It may be condor (someone from my group will
> > chime in if I am wrong (At 1:30 I am sure I am wrong :) )) and it can
> > run video rendering. Sorta like Seti@home for clustering... I believe
> > it has been rewritten since Liggett was involved but the same purpose
> > exists.
> > _______________________________________________
> > BLUG mailing list
> > BLUG@linuxfan.com
> > http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
> >
> _______________________________________________
> BLUG mailing list
> BLUG@linuxfan.com
> http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
>

--
Mark Krenz
Bloomington Linux Users Group
http://www.bloomingtonlinux.org/
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] NOV meeting topic

It was Condor. I used to use it to run some bioinformatics apps that
had been deployed on it. I say was because as far as I understand it
the cluster was end of lifed a year or so ago. The reason I was given
was that when the windows firewall was rolled out to the student
clusters they lost the ability to use Condor/SMBL messaging to manage
jobs/nodes. The student desktop admins didn't want to open up ports
or something along those lines.

Maybe it is still alive in some other capacity but the public site
that you used to access it through is no longer in service:
https://condor.ussg.indiana.edu/ and all the apps that I used to use
on it are available on AVIDD or Big Red.

Josh

On 10/12/07, Matt Standish <mstandish@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> No it's not OpenMosix.. It may be condor (someone from my group will
> chime in if I am wrong (At 1:30 I am sure I am wrong :) )) and it can
> run video rendering. Sorta like Seti@home for clustering... I believe
> it has been rewritten since Liggett was involved but the same purpose
> exists.
> _______________________________________________
> BLUG mailing list
> BLUG@linuxfan.com
> http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
>
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug