On CBS MoneyWatch: 5 Things You Should Buy at Walmart
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

July 11th, 2006

Google's home grown servers show the way

Posted by George Ou @ 6:24 pm

Categories: Hardware, Infrastructure, Servers

Tags:

There was an interesting story about Google building their own servers with customized power supplies.  One issue that was raised was the fact that Google’s application had enough fault tolerance in it that a downed server or more would not bring the entire service down.  Therefore Google could get away with the use of "white boxes" which are perceived to be less reliable than name brand servers.  Note that I say "perceived" because my experience with them is that they really weren’t any less reliable than a name brand server, the only difference was that it may have been a little more difficult to get an onsite support contract for them.  But if you have enough well-designed redundancy in your systems, that shouldn’t really be a problem because you can always take your time getting the parts replaced on warrantee. 

The other interesting point raised by Google’s president of operations Urs Hölzle was the inefficiency of the power supplies in most servers.  Google uses custom power supplies to increase energy efficiency which has a double effect on power usage.  You’re not using as much power to run the servers and you’re not putting out as much heat which means less cooling requirements for the data center.  As Hölzle puts it:

“It’s not hard to do. That’s why to me it’s personally offensive [that standard power supplies aren’t as efficient]”

Since the article linked didn’t elaborate further, I will take a stab at it to give you the likely explanation.  There are 2 main factors that determine the efficiency of a power supply.  The first factor is the design of the power supply.  More expensive power supplies have "Active PFC" (Power Factor Correction) designs that produce less heat which in turn waste less energy.  Most well designed servers will use Active PFCs to minimize waste.  The other big factor is how heavily loaded a power supply is.  The closer to 100% loading you get, the more efficient a power supply is.   At full load, a well designed power supply can be 95-99 percent efficient meaning that for ever 100 watts used 1-5 watts is wasted in the form of heat.  But at half load, the exact same power supply might only be in the 60-70 percent efficiency range.

This second factor is precisely where Server manufacturers have their hands tied.  Server manufacturers cannot sell you a server where the power supply is operating at peak capacity.  Not only is there no room to expand, but there is some risk associated with an underpowered power supply.  Server manufacturers will always sell you a Server with a power supply that is probably 2-4 times bigger than what is actually needed to be overly conservative about safety.  So a server that might only peak at 250 watts will have a 600 watt power supply.  Any Server manufacturer that sold you the same server with a 300 watt power supply will probably be laughed out of business because of the lack of a safety margin.  So the end result is that general purpose servers with over sized power supplies will tend to waste a lot more energy than a custom server with a custom power supply that isn’t nearly as over sized.

George Ou is Technical Director of ZDNet. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 16 Talkback(s)
Yagotta beat me to it
Rats! George Ou makes a mistake, but Yagotta B. Kidding beat me to the reply.

Certain losses in a switching supply are relatively independent of its power output, so a switching supply's effic... (Read the rest)
Posted by: Flash00 Posted on: 07/14/06 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
More Power to You!  D-T-Schmitz | 07/11/06
Makes complete sense.  nucrash | 07/11/06
Blades are kind of a localized DC system  georgeou | 07/11/06
So for a burst in expansion...  nucrash | 07/12/06
My friend admins some boxes in colo in SF that Google uses  CTSTechs.com | 07/13/06
Two stages  Yagotta B. Kidding | 07/12/06
Are you saying blades don't have this problem?  georgeou | 07/12/06
Only partway  Yagotta B. Kidding | 07/12/06
MTBF - Mean Time Between Failures  Peopleunit | 07/12/06
Not quite there on the tech  Yagotta B. Kidding | 07/12/06
But the general idea is right?  georgeou | 07/12/06
Precisely.  Yagotta B. Kidding | 07/12/06
Yes I've seen all of those, thanks  georgeou | 07/12/06
Yagotta beat me to it  Flash00 | 07/14/06
Did Google do it by...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 07/12/06
It doesn't work that way  georgeou | 07/13/06

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

Click Here
advertisement

Recent Entries

Top Rated

    advertisement

    Archives

    ZDNet Blogs

    White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

    SmartPlanet

    Click Here