Patrick W. Gilmore
patrick at ianai.net
Thu Oct 2 14:30:26 CDT 2008
On Oct 2, 2008, at 3:15 PM, Daniel Golding wrote:
> I am really skeptical of this, Patrick. PUE's of between 1.2 and 1.3
> - sure. But below 1.2 on an annual basis? And its not even their
> newest facility. Color me skeptical.
I said "NO @*&@#-ing WAY!!!". :)
Just presenting info. If someone has more detailed information, or a
rebuttal, I bet the collected audience would love to hear it.
Personally, I am glad GOOG is posting their PUE. People who talk
about additional metrics are correct - more information is better.
But some information is better than none, and PUE is a perfectly valid
data point. It doesn't measure everything, but that does not make it
completely useless. Given Google's history of .. shall we say
reticence regarding internal information, it's nice to see SOMETHING
from them. So let's encourage it and see if they release more.
> On Oct 1, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> [#include: boiler-plate apology for operational content]
>> Google has released its PUE numbers:
>> There is a nice explanation of this, including a graph showing why
>> DC efficiency is more important than machine efficiency (on the
>> second page) at this link:
>> I think GOOG deserves a hearty "well done" for getting a whole DC
>> under 1.2 PUE for a whole year. (Actually, I think they deserve a
>> "HOLY @#[email protected], NO @*&@#-ing WAY!!!")
>> 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.
>> For their next miracle, I expect GOOG to capture the waste heat
>> from all their servers and co-gen more electricity to pump back
>> into the servers. :-)
More information about the NANOG