IBM Storage Defender

IBM Storage Defender

Early threat detection and secure data recovery

 View Only

Fundamental Changes for Green Data Centers

By Tony Pearson posted Tue August 07, 2007 11:38 AM

  

Originally posted by: TonyPearson


Jon W Toigo over at Drunkendata has had a great set of posts on his skepticism of storage vendors touting their "green storage" solutions. My apologies for my"unnecessary" use of quotation marks.

The ones I liked specifically were:

The last of which refers to this ComputerWorld article "EPA: U.S. needs more power plants to support data centers", which claims "from a technology perspective, the systems most responsible for gobbling up power are the relatively low-cost x86 servers ..." The article is based onthe recent EPA report that was just released.

Last month, in my post How manys Watts per Terabyte, I mentioned:

Some people find it surprising that it is often more cost-effective, and power-efficient, to run workloads on mainframe logical partitions (LPARs) than a stack of x86 servers running VMware.

Perhaps they won't be surprised any more. Here is an article in eWeek that explains how IBM isreducing energy costs 80% by consolidating 3,900 rack-optimized servers to 33 IBM System z mainframe servers, running Linux, in its own data centers. Since 1997, IBM has consolidated its 155 strategic worldwide data center locations down to just seven.

I am very pleased that IBM has invested heavily into Linux, with support across servers, storage, software andservices. Linux is allowing IBM to deliver clever, innovative solutions that may not be possible with other operating systems. If you are in storage, you should consider becoming more knowledgeable in Linux.

The older systems won't just end up in a landfill somewhere. Instead, the details are spelled out inthe IBM Press Release:

As part of the effort to protect the environment, IBM Global Asset Recovery Services, the refurbishment and recycling unit of IBM, will process and properly dispose of the 3,900 reclaimed systems. Newer units will be refurbished and resold through IBM's sales force and partner network, while older systems will be harvested for parts or sold for scrap. Prior to disposition, the machines will be scrubbed of all sensitive data. Any unusable e-waste will be properly disposed following environmentally compliant processes perfected over 20 years of leading environmental skill and experience in the area of IT asset disposition.



Whereas other vendors might think that some operational improvements will be enough, such as switching to higher-capacity SATA drives, or virtualizing x86 servers, IBM recognizes that sometimes more fundamental changes are required to effect real changes and real results.

technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 comments
6 views

Permalink

Comments

Thu July 03, 2008 11:17 AM

Changed to "rack-optimized" servers to reflect that there are multiple manufacturers of processors (Intel, AMD, IBM), multiple architectures (x86, x64, POWER3, POWER4) and do not want to sound exclusive.

Fri August 17, 2007 04:37 PM

The choice between big iron or x86 as a virtualization platform is never clear cut- IBM did good with their in house job, but that scale is rarely seen in the real (non-fortune 500) world.
There are pros and cons to each side:
Mainframes (or even Unix on Power) typically have a large minimum configuration, are more limited in what type of workloads/OSs they can host, but have better reliability than x86. This comes from having decades of experience building virtualization into the machines themselves.
x86 virtualization comes with a hypervisor that can cost you up to 40% overhead and is still in the process of gaining acceptance for mission critical loads, however offers features that big iron with its decades of virtualization experience never even thought of- like moving virtual machines from one resource to another without bringing them off line.
It comes down to (like so many things in the IT world) a company's individual situation. Figure out the variables, set goals, and decide what's best in your particular situation.

Fri August 10, 2007 11:43 AM

Gosh, I love it when all the bloggers blog about each other's blogs.
I have to note that IBM's recent effort to replace lots of servers with a mainframe tickled me. I can't tell you how many large enterprise shops I have been to lately where the same idea is under consideration.
Not necessarily to green the server environment, but to get control over storage. In one utility company, the CIO told me she was so sick of the obfuscation of her visibility into and management of EMC storage that she was contemplating deploying an IBM mainframe to serve as a front end for all of her distributed systems storage. Leveraging DFSMS and DFHSM, she could make short work of management and reduce costs enormously.
I have also noted that MF are coming back into vogue as companies are encountering problems with performance of large databases, even in "virtualized" server environments. Bigger DBs belong on mainframes.
As for the comments on competitive green features of EMC this and that versus IBM this and that, my comment is simple: green IT has nothing to do with hardware, but with data management.
Thanks for the friendly links, by the way. I just paid you a kudo on DrunkenData.

Tue August 07, 2007 09:14 PM

Geez, Tony. Obviously you are still "Green" (With Envy) over VMware, huh? And that IPO date is rapidly approaching!
Readers Note: that "other vendor" who provides "operational improvements" by "virtualizing x86 servers" happily counts IBM as a major reseller of said "server virtualization technology."
Go figure.
And for the record: apples-to-apples, drive-for-drive, and port-to-port, the DMX easily requires less power to deliver more IOPS and MB/s than the equivalent DS8000. SATA drives are not the secret to using less power than the power-hungry P5-powered storage furnace (but, hey, they are a nice added bonus).
And we're talking real, measurable power and cooling advantage, without the need to buy into a "sole-sourced" "mainframe" "dinosaur" just to be able to safely run multiple Linux applications on a server platform.
Oh, and "all" "quotation" "marks" "are" "indeed" "intentional" :)