RSSHP has a long way to go to get THIS green
I mentioned HPs new "green" business desktop line-up last week, two PC models which cut power consumption by means of enhanced efficiency hardware, power monitoring software, and a solid-state hard drive unit. While impressive as far as enterprise-grade PC hardware goes, if you really want to go green, consider these: thin-client PCs that you can hang off the network jack.
I mentioned in the last article that the real debate was not so much between environmentally conscious PCs and traditional power-hungry models, but between the green PCs and thin-client technologies. This represents the Thin client side of the equation, and as far as power consumption goes, it wins hands-down at 3.5 Watts versus the 40 Watts the most efficient HP model achieves. The Jack PC consumes as much power, in operation, as the HP computers do in sleep mode.
Just to be clear, I am not hashing on HP here; they offer some very energy-efficient thin clients of their own as well as the more traditional PCs. The point, rather, is that if you are really serious about reducing your consumption and all you need is to get from point A to point B, then you should stop thinking in terms of buying a more fuel-efficient SUV and start thinking about getting a motorcycle instead.
This is an interesting option, but it is just the client side of the equation. I would be interested in knowing how much the server side consumes. I assume it scales better per user because there isn’t as much overhead, but this post somewhat misrepresents the efficiencies. It’s less like getting on a motorcycle, and more like taking public transportation.
Oddly enough, I considered the bus analogy first, but I didn’t think it was any better a fit after I thought about it a bit; in most organizations these days, the server capacity is already there, whether you are accessing it with an energy efficient thin-client or a full-on PC. The whole thing is really a crappy analogical framework in the first place; my bad. The point was it’s a way of approaching the problem which requires some conceptual retooling to grasp. It’s not simply that the server is used more efficiently (although it is) but getting used to the idea that getting things done doesn’t require quite the horsepower that most people assume. Getting back to the terrible analogy, the motorcycle doesn’t have the horsepower to haul a trailer, but you don’t need that just to get from point A to point B. You’re assuming the efficiency comes just from a reduction in overhead, but in fact there can be a reduction in overall processing consumption if the system is designed properly. Studies I’ve seen cited have claimed a 50% reduction, going from 85W for a PC down to 40W with a combined thin client/server. Note that the 85W for the PC doesn’t include the server that the PC was probably also using already.