 |
 |
The unix hackers at the Technion did that to the Vaxen 11/7XXes; didn't trust the walk-in UPS, because the mainframe and Vax 9000 would drain it to the dregs. Couldn't do the same thing for the Sun 4/XXX because no source license. Up hill, both ways, in the sand. Simon On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Casey Bisson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Or be like Google, give up on UPSs, and just attached a battery to the DC > side of each server's power supply. > > > http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/04/the-beast-unveiled-inside-a-google-server.ars > > > On May 10, 2010, at 4:41 PM, Simon Spero wrote: > > > At least it wasn't a "totally transparent" UPS test scheduled for the > > Thursday of Thanksgiving weekend. My personal philosophy is that every > rack > > should have its own UPS separate from the data center one, with enough > > capacity to keep going through blips,and handle a clean shutdown if > > necessary. That way, when the ops team messes up, far fewer sysadmins > get > > their weekend ruined. > > > > Of course, the real problem is that too many people are writing > unoptimized > > code in energy-inefficient languages like ruby and PHP, which require far > > more servers, and far more cooling, to do the same work as properly > written > > code. If carbon emissions should turn out to be a strong forcer of > global > > warming, then we can clearly say that every time you write PHP, Phil > Jones > > kills a polar bear. Please, think of the polar bears. > > > > Simon >