Modius Data Center Blog

It's finally here, the ASHRAE Technical Committee 9.9 has released new recommendations for the temperature and humidity most ideal for data centers.

In a nutshell, dry bulb temperature recommendations now extend down to 64.4-degrees F, and UP to 80.6-degrees F and the humidity range is also expanded at both ends.

Both of these are VERY realistic in today's real world. Extending the LOWER limit  down to 64.4F eliminates a great deal of need to mix HOT and COLD previously required to maintain the previous low limit of 68-degrees F. I could never really get a handle on why the recommendation of 68-degree was imposed. It seems to be counter-intuitive that a data center manager that mainly has a heat issue would be required to add heat back into the precious cooling stream... hence with the lower value, the DC manager will have to do this mix LESS often. Nice!

Perhaps more important for the majority of data center operators, is the official sanction to extend the UPPER limit now to 80.6-degree F. Touche'!!!!  We all know that IT gear is spec'd well above these figures, and raising data center temperatures by even a single degree makes a significant impact into cooling costs. Immediately apparent is the ability to use economizer technologies for a much higher percentage of the hours each year.

The TC 9.9 guideline also shows some real thought for Moisture, with the UPPER and LOWER limits tuned to today's conditions and technologies.

The changes to the relative humidity guideline addresses the risks associated with Electro-static discharge (too low) and Conductive Anodic Filament growth (too high). This CAF basically occurs in dense PC board laminate dielectrics when tiny filaments of Copper spring out due to moisture and sometimes cause semiconductor-like connectivity between adjacent routes and vias (holes).

(Here is some light reading on CAF:  http://www.parkelectro.com/parkelectro/images/CAF%20Article.pdf)

So what does this all mean to you??? It means that the operation of a data center using 'best practices' as recommended by ASHRAE will be much more manageable and potentially much more economical. We no longer have to 'baby' the IT gear, and treat it will soft kidd gloves. Intel, Seagate, Infineon and a slew of other IT gear component makers have gone to great lengths to design their individual component-level devices to work hard in a wide range of environments, and we have barely even approached the limits by any analysis. We have played it very safe for a very long time...

We can now feel empowered to stretch a bit. push a little faster, a little deeper and with a bit less rigor for the environment. A little common sense goes a long way...

Over the course of meeting with perhaps 100 customers over the last 6 months, it has become painfully clear to me that there is widescale and growing confusion about Real-Time Data Center Monitoring.

I would suggest that Real-Time monitoring which answers MOST customers' needs MUST have a number of specific capabilities which the vast majority of what's available today do NOT:

1. Scale. Most shipping Data Center Management and Monitoring solutions fail to realize that SCALE is a big deal. Monitoring 100 devices on a trade show floor demo is entirely different that deploying true monitoring across 20 sites, each with thousands of devices. You simply can't use the same ARCHITECTURE, and all the marketing fluff in the world won't solve this fundamental structure issue. The ONLY way to scale this is using a DISTRIBUTED architecture.

2. Device Coverage. These same vendors will tell you that they speak SNMP and that everything you need to monitor speaks SNMP. Nonsense! Firstly, there are many protocols including Mod-Bus, SNMP, BACnet, WMI, Serial, etc, etc. Secondly, just supporting the protocol doesn't get you much closer to the device knowledge. Each device has to be specifically understood to read the required values. In most vendor's proposals, this shows up as "Professional Services" which means 'We'll figure it out on the job, on your dime'.

3. Real-Time Monitoring MUST store observed metrics and KPIs over long periods of time. I would suggest that while there are many reasons why most customers want to see real-time monitoring, the vast majority of these reasons are TIME-BASED. The monitored values or metrics need to be collected, time-stamped, stored, and available openly to run analysis upon. While customers may want to know that the data center is consuming 350kW this instant, what they REALLY want to know is that the data center WAS consuming 275kW 3 months ago, 310kW last month, 350kW today, and then PROJECT the future date of the wall that they will hit of the 500kW feed from the power utility.

The road ahead will continue to be littered with failed deployments of real-time management solutions which do NOT realize the dream of Data Center Monitoring. Customers should challenge their vendors to answer ALL of the tough questions. Consider the old-school 'Get it in Writing' approach, and then be very specific about your expectations, needs, and acceptance criterior...

Let's ALL win this GREEN game!

The IT industry has focused a tremendous amount of attention to the concept of 'GREEN' over the past 5 years. Many of the players, both IT vendors and consumers of IT gear alike have created GREEN Officers or Sustainability Czars, and even whole organizations that focus on 'greening' a company or a product strategy. Green is timely and exciting and viewed as a good corporate citizen thing to do. However, the realities of COSTS are now beginning to materialize.

While it is very exciting to standup in front of your shareholders and articulate all of the GREEN initiatives in progress, there have been a number of recent 'green' projects conceived a few years ago that have been put 'on hold' pending funding. The reality of GREEN is that it COSTS money! It may cost money short term, or it may be long term. Green is not cheap. In some cases an ROI can be calculated to show savings over longer periods of time, in somes cases new technologies must be invented to make any difference in costs.

Consider the grocery store analogy. An organic pear may be 40% higher in cost than a 'generic' pear. Yes, everybody knows that organic is healthier, but how many people are willing to spend 20%-40% MORE for the Organic versions of their groceries? Oh sure, at first you tried a few, but the likelihood is that many of us switched back to regular foods and continue to buy non-Organic groceries due to cost.

Another gem... I priced a 5kW solar system for my house a year or two ago, and with a total cost of over $50K, I calculated the break-even point (after rebates!) to be 9 years! Hummm, so I would have to write a check for $50K, and then over the next 9 years would get my $50K back, and THEN I might start saving money...

In the world of IT, we have the same thing happening today. Many of the biggest companies that jumped into 'GREEN' early because they thought it was a good corporate citizen move while at the same time believing it would somehow save them money, are now finding that 'going green' COSTS money. REAL money! It may be an upfront cost with a 3-5 year payback, or it could be permanent ongoing costs. The fact is TODAY that a kW of power generated by Wind or Solar has a cost of 5-10 TIMES that of fossil fuel generate power. (See the URL: http://greenecon.net/understanding-the-cost-of-solar-energy/energy_economics.html).

Our best bet today is to use advanced monitoring to determine WHERE energy is being used, and how exactly how much by each application. This will set the stage for future investments in green technologies to be deployed. And remember, "Going Green" does NOT mean your energy efficiency is going to be better. You could running your entire data center on renewable power, but do so with a horrible PUE due to process and architecture problems. Wasting a watt is wasting a watt, regardless of where the watt came from.

We have the opportunity to push each other towards data center innovation, the creation of new power and cooling technologies, various regulatory reforms to spur investment even furthar and above all, demand accountability across the board.