Server Consuming less than 0.4 Amps of Power

crazywolf2010Asked:
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

andyalderSaggar maker's bottom knockerCommented:
Best tool is probably APC's UPS selector although it gives maximum load so doesn't allow for CPUs running at 50%.

US version http://www.apc.com/tools/ups_selector/US/en/server/device
UK version http://www.apc.com/tools/ups_selector/GB/en/server/device

Plug PowerEdge 1950 into the calculator and it gives 393 Watts, I doubt you will find any server that has 0.4A @ 220v - that's about 80W. Most CPUs take about 80W unless it's a laptop, then you're talking about 50W total.  You may just scrape by with something like a ProLiant Microserver although it's not 1U.

If this is for a hosted solution the normal thing that people do is pay for several Us to get the required power but fill some of them with blanks.
0
crazywolf2010Author Commented:
Hi,
I am currently using dell r210 which seems peaking at 0.35 the most. And yes it is for hosting solution. The max I have seen at time of booting was 110Watts. I have number of dell r210 with me , unfortunately they come at hefty price tag.

If there are no other servers than r210 in market consuming less than 0.4 Amps then possibly I will stay with them. But I am not convinced that if every ISP here is saying 25£ for 1u /0.4 amps and 45-50£ for 1U/0.8amps, no other vendor except Dell have realised the potential of making server energy efficient.

Thanks
0
andyalderSaggar maker's bottom knockerCommented:
"no other vendor except Dell have realised the potential of making server energy efficient."

That's a pretty bold statement especially since your original servers were 2 processors and the R210 only takes 1. Take a look at HP's Project Moonshot, they're using Intel ATOM CPUs. The power consumption is down to the CPU and that's down to Intel/AMD/ARM etc, nothing to do with Dell.

Single CPU servers at low wattage are easy, you just pick one with an E3-1220L at 20W http://ark.intel.com/products/53401, it's only dual-core/quad thread though. HP DL320e gen8v2 1*E3-1220L, 32GB RAM, 2*SSDs 68.3W peak 54W idle. Well under your 0.4W but it isn't one of the two servers you initially listed.
0
Determine the Perfect Price for Your IT Services

Do you wonder if your IT business is truly profitable or if you should raise your prices? Learn how to calculate your overhead burden with our free interactive tool and use it to determine the right price for your IT services. Download your free eBook now!

crazywolf2010Author Commented:
Hi,
I didn't look at number of cpus within listing.

I will be OK for a single CPU quad core machine.  The app I need to run is data intensive and I will have 16-24GB RAM to take care of it.  I am really looking for a cheaper option to create rack of  1u servers.

Any suggestion please?

Thanks
0
andyalderSaggar maker's bottom knockerCommented:
The HP one is more expensive I'm afraid, £500 before you add CPU,RAM,disks.
IBM X3250 M4 can also be supplied with E3-1220L but probably more expensive than the Dell too. Hmm, you can get away with  E3-1230L which is quad core/8 threads, 25W.

Even supermicro http://www.broadberry.co.uk/supermicro-rackmount-servers?gclid=CNXbrNqf37kCFY7LtAod70gAFw is going to cost about £1000
0
andyalderSaggar maker's bottom knockerCommented:
Hmm, rack full of 1U servers, so about 40 of them?
Blades may be a better option
0
crazywolf2010Author Commented:
Hi,
I have been told there will be 44-48 1u slots. Couple of them will be used by switch,firewall so yes I am looking for 40 servers.
We are looking at hosting around 40K small product test websites with load of 500-1K on each box.
0
andyalderSaggar maker's bottom knockerCommented:
I don't know your webserver/OS but if 40 off single quad core / 24GB RAM can do the job then maybe 20 off dual quad core / 48GB RAM will do the same job as would 10 off dual 8-core / 384GB servers*. Of course each individual server would then take more than 0.4A but they wouldn't take more than 1.6A so the power consumption and performance would be the same, you would just have to add a load of blanking plates. You'd also be dealing with the cheaper 2U dual processor boxes.

I see that in old datacentres sometimes, 7 or 8 servers in the bottom of the cabinet and the rest empty due to power/cooling limitations. It's still cheaper than using lots of low power servers normally.

*Oops, slipped a bit more RAM in that one, but 24*16GB is pretty standard for a 2U server.
0
skullnobrainsCommented:
i pretty much agree with the above statement.

if you want to stick lots of low power consumption machines, you'd most likely have much better power efficiency using less more powerfull machines.

have a look at this chart that maps CPU power to electrical power consumption
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/power_performance.html
unsurprisigly, the first atom CPUs are very low along the line while server-class i7 and a few recent i5 targeted towards laptops do much better

additionally, all server-class processors have good power management while some low-power cpu consume the same low power weather they are actually used or not.

you will also experience a huge gain by not powering dozens of usb ports, screens, network cards, and using less network equipment

if you expect to virtualize stuff, do image manipulation, or similar stuff, also consider that good server-class cpus have all the required extensions. virtualizing a system on a processor that lacks these extensions will consume several times what would be needed on a processor with the required extensions so having a 10% gain in power efficiency would be useless

---

if you have lots of cpus and use intels, you probably should disable hyperthreading for better power efficiency. you also likely should disable as many useless things as possible : serial ports are usually useless except possibly at boot time, usb ports are useless in most situations and consume a lot of power for example.

the choice of OS is also important in this regard. BSDs systems tend to consume very little power as they don't usually run tons of useless things, some linux distributions as well but a good old LFS would likely be much better, solaris is as wide a world as it can be in this respect, windows is a no-go except for windows 8 but i assume you're not running that on a server, no idea about AIX, HPUX, ...

as far as disks are concerned, WD caviar green disks consume little power and give good performance in comparison. you'll likely need good disk throughput if you have less machines so you probably should consider raid 10, raid 50, dedicated disks per application, zfs... depending on your needs. battery backed disks are also often more power-efficient overall but using asynchronous writes would produce the same gain.
0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Server Hardware

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.