Greenpeace attacks Cloud Computing with blatantly one sided argument.
Let me start this article off by saying that I am all for the 'green' movement. If we as a society can reduce what we consume, reuse as much as possible and recycle rather than throw away, I believe we will be much better off than the alternative. If we can reduce global emissions across the board and lean more heavily on renewable energy, all the better. What I don't agree with, however, is attacking certain industries with only half of the story. It's one thing if it was due to ignorance and a complete different monster if it was done intentionally. I'm not going to cast judgment as to which one it is, but without a doubt it is one of the two and I'll leave it to you to decide for yourselves. By the way, I am referring to the Greenpeace report cited at the end of the article. Please look there if you want more information.
One of the areas I focus on is cloud computing which, with virtualization at the core, increases efficiency by orders of magnitude. One of the core concepts of cloud computing is multi-tenancy, which means that multiple systems (belonging to different people or companies) can reside within the same larger cloud infrastructure. The concept is similar to a 24 hour gym membership. You become a member and pay a cost so that you can use the equipment in the gym. The gym banks on the fact that not every member will be in the gym at the same time using the same piece of equipment, and as a member, you do not need to purchase all of the equipment in the gym and have it sit idle 23 out of the 24 hours in a day. The gym is providing a multi-tenant service and you are consuming it.
In the example above, lets examine a few things. Because you are able to use the equipment in the gym when you need it, you do not need to purchase all of that equipment and have it sit around idle most of the time. This is highly efficient in terms of getting use out of the equipment at the lowest cost. This also prevents the amassing of large amounts of equipment, which requires metal, plastic and maybe electricity, in every gym members' home. You also prevent the issue of having to recycle or dispose of that massive amount of equipment when it hits end of life.
Now, I can take that example and look at it through a monocle. By setting up a 24 hour gym, I now have gym lights, air conditioning, TVs and other electronic equipment on 24 hours a day instead of 1 hour a day as a member would have used at home. What is the problem with that view? I've increased electric consumption therefore increasing carbon footprint if that electricity comes from a coal power plant. I must be doing something terrible for the environment. Let's roll that example forward. Let's say as I add membership, I am able to offer lower cost memberships. As a result my memberships start to rise and I have to build more 24 hour gyms. The problem has now exacerbated itself. I am now ever increasing my carbon footprint as I grow to accommodate more business. My projected energy needs are off the chart and I am putting more pollutants into the air, therefore 24 hour gyms are a serious problem that need to be dealt with in terms of not being 'green.'
Hopefully by now, you've see the flaw in that argument. Much like the gym example, cloud computing is growing at a phenomenal rate and using ever increasing energy resources as it does so. Here's the rub. As individuals and businesses jump onto my cloud, they are forgoing purchasing individual servers that will reside within their data centers and other facilities. By forgoing those purchases, they are also not incurring the massive power and cooling bills associated with them (read electricity consumption.) They are also not taking in more metal, plastic, silicon, etc., for each server that will have to be dealt with when the server reaches end of life. Furthermore, because the cloud is multi-tenant, several individuals or businesses can utilizes the resources of a single server. Consolidation ratios get pretty high at this rate. I am essentially cutting overall electricity (and thus carbon emissions) consumption as I move people to the cloud. In addition, the cooling systems in my new cloud data centers are much more robust and efficient than at the individual client sites. What more efficiency can you ask for at the cloud level?
Now that I've bored you with the technical explanation of how cloud computing is actually REDUCING electricity consumption (and this carbon emissions) overall, let me delve into some additional corollary benefits. Because most of the computing power of applications is now done in the cloud, the client devices used to access the cloud (like the iPad or netbooks) require far less energy to operate. They do not put out as much heat and they are smaller and lighter than ever before. Also, as more and more applications are shifted to the cloud, more people can work from home. This incurs less carbon emissions as they are not driving to work every day to accomplish the same tasks. (Man I bet you didn't see that one coming!)
The bottom line is that cloud computing is revolutionizing the IT industry (and business at large) while allowing more work to get done per unit of energy used. You have to look at 'the whole view' to understand that. Greenpeace, I'm sorry to harpoon your inflatable raft, but you have to look are more variables when constructing an argument. I would be happy to see an expanded report showing all of the things I pointed out in this article. I will agree with one thing Greenpeace points out: we need to source more energy from renewable sources. If we can achieve 100% renewable energy use with cloud computing, we have hit the capstone in green IT efficiency.
There are a few things to take away from this article. First, throwing a plethora of numeric figures while analyzing only one side of an argument does not do much in the way of building credibility. More importantly, you better be 100% sure that you understand a technology and the implications of that technology before you go and attack it. In this modern area of instant information dissemination, publishing an article to prove a point can be a double-edged sword. If you are right on target, you will impact people in a positive way. If you are not, you will get embarrassed pretty quickly.
For reference, the Greenpeace report is available here: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/reports4/make-it-green-cloud-computing
How is virtualization green? Can it help your business? How do you implement green computing?
Over the years, the heavy reliance on computers and servers has increased exponentially. With that reliance comes an increase in the overall number of machines in service. The server side of the business has ballooned recently to the point where businesses are faced with concerns such as electricity consumption, cooling and space constraints. Although the overall power (or capacity) of servers has grown rapidly over time, the efficient usage of these servers had not.
In most organizations, server utilization was in the low double digits. Very few businesses were able to utilize 80% or more of a server's capacity, yet that server still consumed a lot of electricity and produced a lot of heat. Unfortunately, most applications are not designed to play nice with other applications and co-exist on the same server. This leaves quite an open door with regards to a solution. How can you cram more applications onto a single server thus raising the utilization? Furthermore, how can you do this and consume less electricity and produce less heat?
The answer is virtualization. The beauty of this solution is that you combat all of the above mentioned problems while adding some resiliency. Virtualization is the conversion of a physical machine to a virtual machine which is then placed on a host machine. Each host machine can contain several virtual machines. These virtual machines run isolated from each other, but share the physical resources of the host machine (such as RAM, CPU, Disk Space, Network Cards, etc.) This allows you to condense the number of servers (now virtual) that can run on a single physical machine. This will also have the side effect of raising the utilization of that host machine as more workloads are put on it.
An easy way to conceptualize virtualization is an office suite application. Years ago, it was not uncommon to have a typewriter for word processing, a ledger for tracking finances and an easel with a drawing pad for presentations. All of these took up a lot of space and they were not utilized all of the time. This is inefficient. Imagine if you could get all three to take up the same small space (footprint) and allow them to be used as needed without taking up more space. Along comes the office suite on a computer. Now you can do word processing, spreadsheets and presentations all within the same application on the same device. No additional space or resources are needed. This is an example of how virtualization works.
Take that approach to a web server, file server, DNS server, authentication server, mail server, etc. Those five applications typically required four or five servers depending on what operating system they ran and what applications were on them. With virtualization, we create separate virtual machines for each application, then host them all on one physical machine. If our mail server virtual machine crashes for any reason, it won't affect the other virtual machines on the host. Each virtual machine is an isolated instance with it's own operating system and application stack. Although all virtual machines on a host share the host's resources, they cannot tresspass on the resources of another virtual machine.
So now we have five virtual machines running our critical applications on a single physical host machine. Wha happens if the mother board on the physical machine dies? Logically all of the machines on the host would die as well. This is where we extend the benefits of virtualization into a cluster of virtual hosts. Instead of one physical machine, we have two physical machines tied together in a cluster with shared storage connected to each. The virtual machines reside on the shared storage. If one physical machine dies, the control of the virtual machines on that host are passed to the second physical host. The second host can now power on the virtual machines that failed (since it also has control of the shared storage) and we're back up and running. There is a lot more magic that goes on in the back end to make this happen, but I am just illustrating the functionality of the solution.
So in the end, we were able to reduce five servers down to two servers. In reality, we could place a lot more virtual machines on a physical host. Let's say that we have three of each of the five original servers I talked about in order to service our entire business. That is fifteen servers in total. We would still use the above logic and place about half on one physical server, and the rest on the second. With this configuration, when one physical server fails, only half of the virtual machines go down and have to be spun up again on the remaining host. This ensures that our business continues as normal with minimal impact on the end user experience.
With fifteen servers condensed on to two physical servers, our electricity consumption has dropped to less than twenty percent of what it was. The heat produced by the servers has also dropped about as much, so the cooling requirement is eased as well. Lastly, we are using much less space to house two servers and a shared storage pool than fifteen servers. We also now need less servers, so less raw materials are used to make those servers. What do you get when you reduce electricity consumption, heat production, raw material usage and physical space (land)? You get a very green solution that is often referred to as Green IT or Green Computing. Within that space, there are vendors that further the 'green level' of the individual parts to bring you Green Storage, Green Servers, RoHS compliant machines, power management products and much more. The ability to green part of your business is increasing every day and one of the fastest and most stable ways to accomplish this is through virtualization.
TheLadders.com Recruits 3PAR and Saves on Storage – Online Job Search Engine Cuts Total Storage Costs by 50%
3PAR, the leading global provider of utility storage, announced today that TheLadders.com, the world's leading online service catering exclusively to the $100k+ job market, cut their total cost of storage in half by replacing their legacy storage infrastructure with 3PAR Utility Storage. The online job search website deployed 3PAR Utility Storage in conjunction with server virtualization from VMware as part of a datacenter virtualization initiative. This initiative reduced the company’s storage capacity requirements by 66%, which also reduced storage administration time. In addition, by consolidating onto a single, highly virtualized 3PAR InServ® Storage Server, TheLadders.com was able to eliminate the use of separate arrays for different applications and reliance on costly consulting services.
“By allowing us to cut our storage TCO by 50%, 3PAR was clearly the most cost-effective solution,” said Frey Kuo, Director of Information Technology and Operations, TheLadders.com. “However, it wasn’t only about the financial benefit. With 3PAR, we now have the ability to add storage at the drop of a hat and the platform’s superior reliability and high performance protects our critical end-user experience.”
With their legacy storage environment, TheLadders.com had to justify the roadmap for data growth on a per-project basis since the total lifetime capacity required for each individual project had to be purchased up front. This situation limited the number of projects that could be initiated in any given year due to cost constraints associated with purchasing all of this capacity at the outset. With 3PAR, TheLadders.com is not only able to scale their storage environment painlessly, but they are able to buy additional storage on an incremental basis and only as needed. This allows the leading online job search website to save on up-front capacity purchases, ease roadmap justification, initiate more projects, and reduce the cost of housing, powering, and cooling their storage.
For TheLadders.com, meeting their growing storage requirements by purchasing legacy storage would have required 200% more capacity than was required by deploying 3PAR Utility Storage. With 3PAR Thin Provisioning software, TheLadders.com is able to purchase only the storage capacity it needs, and only when it is actually needed, thereby reducing up-front capacity and energy costs by 75% and lowering storage administration to a fraction of what it was before. Storage configuration tasks that took days or weeks to complete with legacy storage took just hours with their new 3PAR array.
With the website listing more than 8,000 new jobs each week across every industry, it was important that the storage infrastructure at TheLadders.com be scalable while also protecting the end-user experience. Their 3PAR InServ distributes all workloads over all system resources for reliability and high performance. TheLadders.com has found automated rebalancing with 3PAR Dynamic Optimization, in combination with the array’s native mixed workload support, to be extremely beneficial. This has enabled the online job search website to maintain robust and consistent performance and avoid disruption when scaling their storage environment.
“TheLadders.com is one of many Internet and Web 2.0 companies that have come to us looking for cost savings and have stayed with us for our superior simplicity, efficiency, performance, and reliability,” said David Scott, President and Chief Executive Officer for 3PAR. “Legacy vendors are plagued by inefficient, inflexible architectures and a rigid business model. Our customers understand that there is a far better alternative that is well suited for businesses seeking a leaner, more agile approach.”
