Google's PUE

Daniel Golding dgolding at
Thu Oct 2 19:17:02 UTC 2008

On Oct 1, 2008, at 3:06 PM, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:

>> On Oct 1, 2008, at 2:04 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>>> Personally, I think only a self-owned DC could get that low.  A
>>>> general purpose DC would have too many inefficiencies since someone
>>>> like Equinix must have randomly sized cages, routers and servers,
>>>> custom-built suites, etc.  By owning both sides, GOOG gets a boost.
>>>> But it's still frickin' amazing, IMHO.
>>> I wonder what it cost? :-)
>> What cost to the environment of not doing it?
>> OK, green hat off. :)  Seriously, I doubt GOOG isn't seeing serious
>> savings from this over time.  If they weren't why would they do it?
> 	They seem to be very environment focused, so I'm sure doing
> anything that isn't is subject to scrutiny from the rest of the  
> industry.
> 	Hopefully it won't come around to bite them. I had read an
> article on "The Planet" going as green as possible, then they had the
> huge outage and I'm sure negated 2-3 times what they had done to that
> point.
> 			Tuc/TBOH

The Planet had an outage because something blew up and the fire  
department made them shut everything down. I wouldn't assume any sort  
of linkage between efficient design and power savings, except that one  
way to get very efficient design is to remove redundant components. I  
don't think Google, or the Planet, or anyone else is doing that,  

More information about the NANOG mailing list