The demand for data centers—and more power to run them—continues.

By Paul Hull

“There are always at least two sides to every question,” smiled my father when he saw I was about to explode at some idiot’s perception of life. He was right, of course, and I’ve found reason to confirm that philosophy in my research on networked computers and those who use them. When computers first earned national publicity, they were useful targets for blame. If anything went wrong in the office, in the production department, in engineering, or accounting, it could be blamed on those newfangled computers—with their inexplicable software—and never on the people who were supposed to make the departments efficient. Even today it is convenient to blame problems on computer (rather than human) error. You experience a problem with your credit card, bank statement, or frequent flyer miles and it’s always the computer, not the person, who has erred. And the friendly customer service person will make it right.

In my conversations with people who use networked computers, I have noticed a stubborn minority who blame “the network” for their inability to do this or that. That includes saving energy with simple, good, everyday practices. “I’d save energy if the network would let me,” has been stated. “If only it was in my hands,” regrets another. “I told Mr. Bumble about that only last Thursday,” alleges the clerk in the county treasury office. In some cases, it may be true, but such an attitude can more often be a ploy for placing the blame for any lack or laziness firmly on somebody else’s shoulders, especially on an unnamed, inhuman somebody. Occasionally, the network user would assert that one particular employee was controlling everybody else’s behavior when it came to computer use. If that was simply the natural resentment of many employees towards their bosses, it’s understandable. If, however, one (possibly unqualified?) person has been allowed to control the networked computer users for no good reason, on the basis of rank, perhaps, it’s a situation that should be remedied as soon as possible. There are ways to save money in computer use, and those who are not doing it are wasting money.

We turn off the house lights at night. We turn off the television when we go to bed. We park our vehicles somewhere sensible when we’re not using them. Why don’t users shut down their computers? The answers to a survey done by the 1E software and services company with the Alliance to Save Energy were most interesting and seem to apply to those who are networked as much as those who are not. (My thanks to Joey Marquart at Edelman, the renowned public-relations firm with 48 offices and more than 2,500 employees worldwide, for this information.) About 40% said it was “IT [information technology] policy or procedure” to leave the computer on. Thirty-one percent said their computers went into hibernation or sleep mode. Twenty percent said “It takes too long to do”. Eleven percent blamed sheer habit, and 10% said they didn’t think it was important, which goes along with the 8% who think it’s too much hassle, not to mention the same number who just plain forget.

An interesting product to which our exchange with Marquart led us is called Nightwatchman. A 1E product, this software addresses the challenge of shutting down PCs in a large network where users require different settings for working and out-of-office hours. It’s easy to install and simple to use, yet it allows critical patches and updates to be deployed as and when required. It guarantees 100% patch management success. Now in its fifth generation, Nightwatchman uses reliable, proven technology to enable centralized, scheduled shutdown of PCs. It allows organizations to enforce energy-saving schemes; among benefits of the system are that it reduces bottom-line energy costs. It shuts down PCs automatically to a centrally controlled schedule and protects unsaved user data prior to shutdown. The shutdowns can be scheduled as daily, immediate or one-off events. One user—an international bank with many, many computers—reports that it saved more than a million dollars in the last year by using the software and a telephone company saved half a million. What was the principal reason for purchasing Nightwatchman? “To save energy and, therefore, money.”

Another company sent information about its progress in reducing energy consumption for computers. NComputing has developed a thin client, multi-user PC technology that saves energy. In fact, it reduces the energy consumed by PCs more than 80%. The company makes hardware and software that allows up to 30 users to tap the otherwise wasted computing power of a typical desktop PC. On average, PCs use 120 watts. Each seat with NComputing technology uses only three watts. The company has installed more than 500,000 seats in 2007, mostly in underserved markets like K-12 education and developing countries. And because NComputing’s hardware does not need to be refreshed every few years, as some PCs do, it will greatly reduce e-waste (reported by some to be 70% of America’s toxic waste). Again, we see a new technology that has been developed to solve an exponential growth of an industrial problem.

Use the Facts as a Starting Point
Myths about computers are dangerous. Who starts them? It could be some vendors who want you to buy something because you now have a fear that disaster will strike if you don’t have their products. It could be the person who always likes to spread gloom and doom in the workplace by repeating and embellishing gossip heard at lunch (rather like that sports expert we all know). Myths could originate with that self-styled expert, found in many companies, departments, and schools, who has become the homegrown computer guru and whose word is taken as gospel. A recent report from the government about data centers and their use of energy incensed a true expert because it failed to point out the amount of energy already saved by computers. (His father must have told him about all the sides to any question, too.) He feels the report encourages myth conceptions because it tells only one part of the story. He asked me to think about the amount of energy saved because, thanks to computer programs, trucks now travel full instead of half-empty, because drivers don’t waste time and fuel with poor directions. “Ask UPS, FedEx, and the truck companies if computers have saved them any fuel and energy in recent years,” he says.

Among myths we have heard are basic statements like: “Windows XP Home Edition only allows five computers on a peer-to-peer network, and Windows XP Professional only allows 10 computers.” There is an element of truth in it, as there is in most myths. The Home Edition permits a maximum of five other computers to its shared resources at the same time. Windows XP professional lets a maximum of 10 other computers connect to its shared resources at the same time. Any computers that aren’t actively connected to a computer’s shared resources don’t count against those limits. If a computer disconnects from a shared resource, it no longer counts. You know, however, that some network decisions have been based on poor information; those myths can spread faster than the truth. If you want the truth about Windows XP or any other product, it is a good idea to start research with its manufacturer.

If you accept the myth that computers are draining the energy of our country, consider that, with the surge in the last two or three years in energy consumption since the introduction of blade servers and high-speed switching, the amount used is about 9.5% of the total US electricity usage. Most of that comes from monitors and PCs, but with more and more from data centers and networking equipment. The amount used in data centers is expected to double in the next four years. Again, we must balance that use with the amount of energy (especially gas and diesel) saved by the existence and work of those computers.

Another positive thought that we should never forget is that distributed energy has contributed enormously to the efficiency and continued existence of our essential data centers. Computers that should never fail for lack of power owe so much to non-grid energy systems and power sources that do not rely on traditional electric power for their lives.

“A lot of attention is focused on energy management in data center environments, but we rarely hear about the energy efficiency efforts on the decentralized desktops side,” observes Dmitry Shesterin, marketing manager for Faronics. “You will see that every server in a rack caters to hundreds, if not thousands, of desktops, desktops that are never shut down or managed. The wave, however, is turning, and more and more people start to realize that the decentralized desktops may consume several times more electricity than data centers.” Faronics recently installed its Power Save in Newport (KY) Independent Schools. Power Save wakes up the computers early in the morning for antivirus scans and Windows updates. The program allows Newport schools to power up, power down, and sleep computers with ease. It also reports power consumption and details such as how long a workstation has been powered on, powered off, and how much energy and money is being saved, based on the regional electricity cost.

“Not everybody realizes that by implementing effective energy management on a desktop computer, one can save up to 50 dollars a year per desktop,” adds Shesterin. “Multiply that by the number of workstations a company has and the amount is significant enough to consider implementation of a good system for control. At Faronics we have a wide network of established relationships with leading utility companies that have energy rebate programs in place. Power Save often qualifies for those rebates and ends up being free or nearly free to the end user, as the purchase price of $10 per license is offset by the rebate from the local utility company. Consider, too, the security aspect. By shutting down inactive computers, our customers minimize security risks in their IT infrastructure. Try breaking into a computer that is off!”

Changing Costs and Habits
In the 1980s, it was considered wise policy to avoid turning computers on and off to prolong their life. In those same ’80s, computers cost a lot more than they do today and energy cost a lot less. The advice was not all bad ... in the Eighties. (Many computer users today hadn’t finished school in the ’80s.) Data centers, frequently criticized as guzzlers of energy, have developed from the needs of the users; they are not merely the dreams of nerds or some nebulous group of society fixers called IT experts.

“Computers in a data center and servers should stay on all the time,” comments David Milman, chief executive officer of Rescuercom, a nationwide fix-your-computers company based in Syracuse, NY. “We have 65 servers in our company because we need them to give the total service we offer our clients nationwide. Some companies have hundreds of servers, even thousands. But, before we gasp at that use of energy, we should remember and appreciate just how much energy computers have saved our nation’s businesses. The number of computers in data centers rises steadily because people are demanding the services and savings they offer. As the need increases, the power consumption increases. What will bring a solution? There are already new processors (from companies like AMD) with lower power consumption and the light-based transfer of data will help.” Light-based transfer? It reminds us again that the solution to today’s problems (as it was for yesterday’s) may well be in new technologies that will require much less energy. In our quest for energy efficiency, let’s keep an eye on that particular technology: light-based transfer.

Among the at-your-location services offered by Rescuecom and its franchisees for computer users is advice about networking. “We not only make sure you have the right network for your needs, but that the network is always reliable, fast, and easy to use,” adds Milman. “In a word, our certified technicians make it flawless. They deal with all types of network configurations.” (A point that interested me was that only one-tenth of one percent of those who apply to be Rescuecom technicians has been good enough to get the role.) Milman also told us that networks at home are becoming more popular, with online computer games, streaming music and videos, gaming consoles, and video conferencing for families that live far from each other just some of the possibilities for a computer network in your house. It seems to be the demand for networked computers that is increasing the energy usage, rather than any carelessness or don’t-care attitude on the part of those who are already using them. Does it remind you, too, of our demand for gasoline and diesel fuels? The user’s usage may dictate the energy consumed and, just as FedEx, UPS, truck companies, the postal service, and city buses must deliver, so data centers must deliver what is required of them, too.

Long-Term and Short-Term
Rick Brenner, principal of Chaco Canyon Consulting, based in the Boston area, has years of experience in practical computer work and in consulting with companies and government agencies of all sizes. Among his varied clients have been Lucent Technologies, Wachovia Bank, the IRS, Intuit Corp., Microsoft, and the National Credit Union Administration.

He makes some excellent points for us. “For a short-term solution to using too much power, have your machine revert to sleep mode automatically after an appropriate idle interval,” notes Brenner. “Almost nobody minds that. Sleep mode, of course, doesn’t save as much as the off switch. If this is not feasible, perhaps because it’s a hassle to open the right documents and applications the next day, make your setting up easy by setting up (or having somebody do it for you) startup scripts. This can save 50% of existing consumption. When you’re on vacation, on travel, or otherwise absent, power everything down. You could even try telecommuting. The company will save money on energy, and you’ll save the cost of commuting.”

For your long-term solutions to energy efficiency, Brenner recommends that you choose a notebook over a desktop, with the proviso that you are supplied a real keyboard and screen. Notebooks use far less energy and they take up less space on your desk. In the event of a power failure, you don’t lose work. “Downsize horsepower when possible,” concludes Brenner. “Opt for machines that are a little more than sufficient, instead of machines that are clearly overkill.”

Those words of wisdom echo the good advice of those who tell us to use smaller vehicles that drink less fuel. We have seen overkill for vehicles, even when gas prices have soared. (You should see the number of big pickups on my block of town that seldom have more than one occupant and the beds are too clean and expensively lined to load.)

Perhaps we should address overkill in computers. Many of us with computers in offices and factories use only a small percentage of their actual capability. Many of us are part of a network, because it’s a good way to communicate with each other in the work situation, but do we all need the same powerful services from our computers? Several people asked me (and I haven’t found the answer yet) if energy is being wasted by making unnecessary powers available to all users in a network.

Three of the responses to the survey mentioned above have potential disaster in their concept. “It takes too long”, “It’s too much of a hassle”, and “It’s not important” are statements that mirror those of a good friend of mine who drives 500 yards to the hospital pharmacy to pick up diet pills and another who drives 300 yards to mail a letter. There is a feeling that seems fundamental to most of us who live in the US, the belief that we can do what we like as long as we can afford it and, if it’s an energy or environmental problem, somebody will come along with the right technology to let us continue acting as we wish. The program mentioned above from 1E reinforces this belief that big companies, especially, are seeking solutions to the energy problems created by today’s massive use of computers, but it also shows that companies, rather than individuals, are taking the necessary steps.

Educating the Users
Just about everybody in the private and the public sector agrees that we can and must save energy in our computer use, and that means that we need to educate ourselves, our children, and grandchildren to develop good habits and an awareness of the problems and their solutions. As younger people start to face (and pay) those rising electric bills, their understanding of today’s problems may help to initiate tomorrow’s solutions. A good place to start that education is in the schools, at every level but especially at the college level.

In an interesting and sensible article on the Web site of Colorado State University, Patrick J. Burns, director of that university’s Academic Computing and Networking Services (ACNS), advises everybody to “do the right thing” to save energy in their computer activity.

He notes that Colorado State saw an increase of more than $3.5 million in energy costs in one year. His article advises us to turn off our computers automatically. Turning off computer components brings savings that vary. Turn off the monitor and you save 60%. Turn off the hard disk and you’ll save 20%. Turn off the central processing unit, and you’ll save 20%. Those savings are cumulative, so you’d save 80% if you turned off both monitor and hard disk.

“Desktop computers consume from 100 watts to 125 watts of power when active,” Burns reminds us. “At our current energy cost, that could translate into an annual cost savings of $7 per computer.” Does that sound inconsequential?

“Every month, ACNS counts the number of devices (computers, printers, switches, and so forth) connected to the campus network,” adds Burns. “The figure counted last September was 16,718, of which we think more than 12,000 are computers. If just half the computers on campus were configured for Energy Star features, an annual savings of about $40,000 could be achieved.”

Across the country at Virginia Tech, Kirk Cameron, associate professor of computer science, tells us that his university is developing software that improves the ability to save energy on computers in a variety of settings without affecting the productivity of the user.

A friend of mine in financial services is based at home but travels extensively. She takes her (energy-friendly) laptop with her and her version of being networked is that she is linked to a virtually private network, or VPN, at her company’s head office. This enables her to have safe access to information without anyone else interfering. She has total control over her computer.

On the basis that changes and improvements come most slowly to the more remote communities of our nation, I visited three leading establishment in a community with about 10,000 inhabitants (but one, nevertheless, where computers are used by many of those for business, educational, personal, entertainment, and agricultural reasons).

At the main bank, which is one branch of about 20 in its ownership system, the computers are networked and are left on at night. The reason given is that all the backup goes on at night, with an entire, central office department doing it all (“and they hate to have to do their work the following morning”).

Employees at the branch I visited do not turn off their computers. Neither do they realize how much electricity they use.

At the community college there is a room with servers that are never turned off, but the staff who are part of the college’s network can turn their computers on and off when they go home each day. They can place information for everybody’s use on a special Web site; that, say users, is much easier and faster than e-mailing individually.

“People can choose to turn off their computers every night after work if they want to,” says Tyler Larson, technology coordinator at the college. “There is no central control that prevents a user doing that. The servers, of course, are not turned off.” At the courthouse and county offices, employees can turn on and off their computers at will, even though they are part of a network. What surprised me most with all the people I met in the community’s establishments were the looks of surprise when I said there were nationwide efforts to reduce the amount of energy used by computers. “Really? That does make sense, doesn’t it?” was the consensus.

Problems associated with data centers are not going to go away by themselves. Diamond Management & Technology Consultants Inc. has warned that corporate data centers have become incredibly powerful (while also reducing their physical footprints), but they have shown, in their valuable growth, frailties in the US electrical grid. (Thank heavens for distributed energy again.)

“We are encouraging IT leaders to employ a multipronged approach, one that ranges from demand optimization onsite to active participation in the legislative process,” comments Jeff Hughes, a partner in Diamond and practice director of the firm’s technology operations services. “They need to bring their demand for electricity under control. Failure to do so could have a detrimental impact on the growth of this critical economic sector.”

In its white paper, “The Power of IT,” Diamond mentions the following points to illustrate the urgency of the power crunch for data centers:

• Seventy percent of US data centers will require major upgrades or replacement in the next five years to meet future power, cooling and other demands, according to Uptime Institute.
• More than 50% of all data center managers and IT leaders plan to relocate facilities or outsource selected applications, mainly due to the growing costs of powering and cooling data centers, according to AFCOM.
• The Energy Information Administration predicts an average increase in demand from commercial clients of 1.9% per year for the next 20 years. But data center power demands are growing at an average of 8% per year, with the most “power hungry” centers growing at more than 20% per year.

The problems of energy supply are growing. Companies in the distributed energy sector are aware of this and, by all reports, doing an excellent job of stemming the flow of negative results.

Anything that can save energy in our computerized world is a blessing, even if it is what seems an insignificant amount of $10 per year per computer.

When you consider how many computers are working (and drawing power) each and every day, you must appreciate that individual savings by each user are important. Do your networked computer users understand how much power is used for their machines? Do they have a way to save power? Have you told them? Is it your personal and corporate policy to save energy by simple procedures?

As with all resources, the greatest fear for future generations may not be the price but the possibility that we may run out.

Author Paul Hull writes on construction and technology for several Forester publications.

DE - January/February 2008