Sat 22 Nov 2008

RSS Feed

Edited by Paul Hales

Published by Incisive Media Investments Ltd.

Terms and Conditions of use.

To advertise in Europe e-mail here

To advertise in Asia email here.

To advertise in North America email here.

Join the INQbot Mail List for a weekly guide to our news stories:

Subscribe

AMD bangs virtual green drum

Replaces 135 servers with just seven, thanks to VMware

AMD ONCE HAD 135 servers crunching data for its Austin Texas HQ. Now, having virtualised the lot using VMware's virtualisation software it has cut that number to just seven. The move resulted in 79 per cent power savings, Margaret Lewis, AMD director of commercial solutions* and software strategy told the INQ this week.

Isn't virtualisation bad news for a chip maker? we wondered. If seven servers can do the same job as 135 did before, doesn't that mean you'll sell fewer chips? Lewis claimed that the move means that firms that virtualise will be able to deploy the spare capacity to do other things. We were unable to pin down what these might be, however.

Margaret Lewis

AMD reckons its multi-cored Opteronic architecture is the best choice for virtualised environments because virtualisation is memory intensive. AMD's Direct Connect architecture allows all CPUs to access all memory blocks in the system, so it is much more flexible than "other" architectures, Lewis claimed.

The firm is plugging its virtualisation prowess. Lewis said its new Rapid Virtualisation Indexing technology means much of the memory handling in a virtualised environment becomes a hardware function, lessening reliance on software for complex memory handling.

Lewis wouldn't be drawn on which software virtualiser virtualises the best, but delivered a long list of companies with which AMD had worked to optimise Opteron's virtual credentials. Last of these was Microsoft, and Lewis did look a bit sheepish when delivering the M-word, but that may have been because of some perception that we're open sauce evangelists here at the INQ. But we did happen to notice that when four-core Barcelona was finally delivered it came with an ad. campaign sponsored by Microsoft, which is playing virtual catch-up with year. Indeed, no sooner had we left Lewis's warm presence than Microsoft had delivered its Hyper-V-ole software. Hmm. There may be a perception that Microsoft will take over the whole virtualisation world, but that's not going to happen, said Lewis. But it will certainly have a go.

Along with any discussion of virtualisation comes a discussion of that oxymoron, Green IT. Lewis is shrewd enough not to tell the INQ that AMD is concerned with saving the planet. What she does claim is that the firm lucked out because it was concerned with delivering lower-power server chips some time before the IT world went green propaganda bonkers. Green talk has taken off big time over the past two and a half years, she says. Luckily AMD was bragging about delivering future Opterons in the same power envelope back in April 2003 - when it, "wasn't trendy to be green."

The storm came, she said, when energy prices shot up.

Economics is all about of scarcity. No firm is going to go "green" unless it saves or makes (through good PR) money. But when the costs of powering and cooling a server farm or data centre shoot through the roof, that's when more efficient chips and software solutions become flavour of the month. Luckily for AMD, the economics of scarcity mean energy prices are never going to go down again.

"Green also stands for efficiency, said Lewis. "Performance comes at a price and today customers are less concerned with raw performance, they now ask how much it costs. (...) This comes along with the realisation that we may be harming ourselves if we don't actually go green. " µ

* In charge of the drinks machine...?

Comments

Anyone who

has worked in the field for any length of time knows there's a digital analogue, so to speak, to Parkinson's Law something to the effect that demand for service(s) expands to fill the available capacity. Those "idle" servers won't stay that way for long.
posted by : Exigent, 27 June 2008

M/S Virtual Earth Updates are 100 terra flops.

Sure, you ?could replace 135 servers with 7? Is that Magic Number? 7. Yet its more possible on small data machines.

Take Microsofts Virtual Earth, Available FREE. every few months it has updates & update alone comes in close to 100 terraflops of data. Now how many virtualized servers would that need?

Its 50 2 Tb HDD just to start or near Fifie thou. Just saving $1/Hr in power could save that much in 8 years. however, if you had such capacity, you'd have your onan generator, too. What if nobody cared about maps? Let alone other 135 servers glut?

Paul to Paul Messaging:www.geocities.com/tsvondrashekmd/Suspect.html. So how much would world save without such messages, about $15 pop. thinks problem is: theINQ is similar to, Slaver: Mary Celeste.
TS drashek paulHd
posted by : Terra_Tom, 27 June 2008

You can't say it better

I see this trend myself: There is always the demand for another application server just around the corner. While the applications which they host are considered to complex to be installed side-by-side with others, their actual workload is so low that they do not justify another hardware box.

The same holds true for backup-infrastructure services like Domain controllers or DNS: In case one of the big machines fails, backup-devices will be sufficient to keep the operation going until the main machine has been serviced.

Sharing these low-usage application servers and backup-systems on less hardware is a very good way to save energy and save rackspace.
posted by : Detlev Rackow, 28 June 2008

profit motive

Maybe its the profit motive at work: AMD probably makes more profit from selling cpus for 7 high end servers (7 x 2 Quad Cores) than it makes from selling 135 low end chips.
posted by : martin, 29 June 2008

Hypervole? Good God ya' all.

No company is gong to go green unless coerced?

We've created that sort of market place and very clearly it's an utter joy to some, like fish finding water. But it's not entirely true and if we the people started focusing on eliminating black market profits so our markets weren't flooded with dirty money, then honest business people would thrive and the caca roaches would go hungry. Our free market depends on the people actively working to keep the markets clean. That involves some small risk, like the risk of children being addicted to drugs, but how do you compare that against the war in Iraq or the sad state of affairs we face today? Teaching children to take responsibility(gives you shivers doesn't it Brown) is the way to fight addiction- and they are allowed to make their own mistakes. which we humans will do form time to time, though let's not pretend that any of us knows it all. We tend to react to crime rather then addressing the root of crime, which is the black market money. We have to be smarter then that.

Unfortunately that would require some thought and our Western Culture seems to prefer drinking over thinking, which brings us back to coercion, corruption and hypervole.

Thanks all!
posted by : WSmart, 29 June 2008
IThound
Search for solutions, reports & analysis

Newsletter signup



 

Top INQ Stories