6 ms·

This is all very speculative. I'd say they just want to save power.

zalew 15y ago
Save power by working in a helmet to save 30min of a lightbulb when you host equipment worth millions eating up gazillion kilowatts?
- jrockway 15y ago
  At Google's scale, micro-optimizations add up to millions of dollars.
mc32 15y ago
They are also asking the facilities to turn off their overhead lighting as well --which presumably is not billed. Moreover, since most would be fluorescent, the amount of energy wasted would be minimal compared to equipment.
- twelvechairs 15y ago
  > They are also asking the facilities to turn off their overhead lighting as well --which presumably is not billed. I assume google owns their own data centres, and even if not, its highly likely they would negotiate on points like this with the owner for price. [EDIT: okay. so its been pointed out I didn't read the article properly (not google owned). The second point still stands however, I am sure that Google can negotiate with price on a total-energy package] > Moreover, since most would be fluorescent, the amount of energy wasted would be minimal compared to equipment. I don't know how you can make that statement. There is a probably a pretty low-frequency of physical access to each server, so it seems obvious to me that a couple of rechargable LED lamps roaming around a huge space is going to be hugely more energy-saving than drenching the whole place with fluro lights (which also need regular replacement, and add to the heat load) constantly.
  - culturestate 15y ago
    > I assume google owns their own data centers The article specifically referenced Google's cages in Equinix data centers.
  - mc32 15y ago
    >I assume google owns their own data centres, and even if not, its highly likely they would negotiate on points like this with the owner for price. The Article is specifically talking about space Google rents in other data enters. It would appear they are more sensitive to losing competitive advantage than a few dollars in energy savings
  - mrb 15y ago
    If there is 1 fluorescent light strip (~20W) over every 2 rack cabinets (~10kW), that's only 0.2% of the power consumption dedicated to lighting. Saving this, is far from being "hugely more energy-saving".
    - twelvechairs 15y ago
      Comparing it to as a percentage to what servers use is a spurious relationship. An energy saving is an energy saving. Servers need to be on and lights don't. 20W*hundreds of racks (plus extra for heat extraction) is still greater than a couple of 5 watt headlamps - why spend money on this if you don't need to?
      - ars 15y ago
        You did not take into account the energy to create those headlamps, and to replace worn batteries. I estimate each headlamp uses as much energy as a 15 watt lamp burning continuously for a year. Depending on how much they use them (they probably last around 500 hours before being worn out) they may come out ahead or behind, but it's not a slam dunk. > plus extra for heat extraction To extract the heat takes 1/3 as much energy as was emitted, if that helps your calculations.
        twelvechairs 15y ago

zalew 15y ago

Save power by working in a helmet to save 30min of a lightbulb when you host equipment worth millions eating up gazillion kilowatts?

jrockway 15y ago
At Google's scale, micro-optimizations add up to millions of dollars.

mc32 15y ago

They are also asking the facilities to turn off their overhead lighting as well --which presumably is not billed. Moreover, since most would be fluorescent, the amount of energy wasted would be minimal compared to equipment.

twelvechairs 15y ago
> They are also asking the facilities to turn off their overhead lighting as well --which presumably is not billed. I assume google owns their own data centres, and even if not, its highly likely they would negotiate on points like this with the owner for price. [EDIT: okay. so its been pointed out I didn't read the article properly (not google owned). The second point still stands however, I am sure that Google can negotiate with price on a total-energy package] > Moreover, since most would be fluorescent, the amount of energy wasted would be minimal compared to equipment. I don't know how you can make that statement. There is a probably a pretty low-frequency of physical access to each server, so it seems obvious to me that a couple of rechargable LED lamps roaming around a huge space is going to be hugely more energy-saving than drenching the whole place with fluro lights (which also need regular replacement, and add to the heat load) constantly.
- culturestate 15y ago
  > I assume google owns their own data centers The article specifically referenced Google's cages in Equinix data centers.
- mc32 15y ago
  >I assume google owns their own data centres, and even if not, its highly likely they would negotiate on points like this with the owner for price. The Article is specifically talking about space Google rents in other data enters. It would appear they are more sensitive to losing competitive advantage than a few dollars in energy savings
- mrb 15y ago
  If there is 1 fluorescent light strip (~20W) over every 2 rack cabinets (~10kW), that's only 0.2% of the power consumption dedicated to lighting. Saving this, is far from being "hugely more energy-saving".
  - twelvechairs 15y ago
    Comparing it to as a percentage to what servers use is a spurious relationship. An energy saving is an energy saving. Servers need to be on and lights don't. 20W*hundreds of racks (plus extra for heat extraction) is still greater than a couple of 5 watt headlamps - why spend money on this if you don't need to?
    - ars 15y ago
      You did not take into account the energy to create those headlamps, and to replace worn batteries. I estimate each headlamp uses as much energy as a 15 watt lamp burning continuously for a year. Depending on how much they use them (they probably last around 500 hours before being worn out) they may come out ahead or behind, but it's not a slam dunk. > plus extra for heat extraction To extract the heat takes 1/3 as much energy as was emitted, if that helps your calculations.
      - twelvechairs 15y ago