1 / 11

Are Low Power Server CPUs Worth the Cost?

This article explores the cost-effectiveness of low power server CPUs, specifically comparing the L5640 and X5670 models. It analyzes power consumption and performance under various loads, using a small server setup as an example. Key metrics such as total power usage, throughput, response time, and idle power consumption are examined. While the X5670 shows higher performance, it comes at a greater financial cost. The discussion also highlights implications for data centers regarding power allowances and penalties.

kailey
Télécharger la présentation

Are Low Power Server CPUs Worth the Cost?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Are Low Power Server CPUs Worth the Cost? Michael Fruchtman

  2. Power Usage of a Small Server Setup • Example: Given 4 servers • Server consumes 250W each at 60% • United States • 10-11 amps, 1200W (safety margin) • Cost $300 a year • Europe • 5amps (higher voltage), but amps cost more • $500 a year • Also - carbon footprint

  3. In this corner…

  4. The Judges • vApus Mark I • Simulates a consolidated virtualization load • Meant for 90-100% load comparisons • Good for HPC, not good for servers • Servers operate at 30-60% • Solution: Reduce the simulated machines by half • Simulate load of an OLAP database (4 vCPUs), OLTP database (4 vCPUs), and 2 VMs • Both CPUs can handle double this load • Measure response time, throughput, and power usage

  5. Idle Power Usage • At idle • PCU shuts down 5 cores • Reduce clock speed • No difference at idle

  6. Under Load • At average power use • X5670 considerably more • 25-60W more • Throughput • L5640 took 66 minutes • X5670 took 59 minutes

  7. Total Power Use • Even power usage • L5640 and X5670 on balanced • X5670 consumed 20Wh more • Race to idle • X5670 able to race to idle and shutdown • Idle power consumption makes up for higher use

  8. Throughput and Response Time Both graphs use the geometric mean.

  9. Addition Statistics • L5640 at Balanced to High Perf X5670 • 69% of throughput,76% longer response time, but 91% of power consumption • L5640 at Balanced to Balanced X5670 • 76% of throughput, 34% longer response time, but 97% of power consumption • Not a good deal if you can afford it • X5670 costs $900 more than L5640 • Adds only $200 a year in power cost

  10. Any Advantages? • Caps maximum power draw • Range of X5670 is higher • With L5640 one knows maximum draw of a server over time due to cap of 60W • Data centers have penalties if one exceeds the power allowance • Low power CPUs save power, but not energy

  11. Questions

More Related