A comparison of broad power consumption data from 2007 to 2008 indicates a decline in both average and averaged maximum power consumption to the extent that France has now slipped behind the global average.  While the dramatic shift in the results does in part result from differing samples in 2007 and 2008 the picture of a decline or at least a halt in power densities remains.  Similar results from Paris in November 2008 indicate the French market is moving back closer to average at 3.7 kW/rack (average) and 9.7 kW/rack (averaged maximum):

Part of the reason for the state of affairs in France is indicated by the chart below. This shows the results of PUE measures reported in London and Paris at the events of November 2008.  While other research indicates that the figures shown may not be representative of either market as a whole and may disregard a high proportion of data centers with less flattering PUE scores, the relative standing of London and Paris indicates that data centers in the latter market at least on the basis of this method of assessing efficiency are considerably less efficient than their UK counterparts. One in three UK data centers are claimed to achieve a PUE of better than 1.67 compared to fewer than 10% of French data centers while over 40% of French data centers achieve a rating of 2.00 or worse, at almost twice the rate of UK data centers.

The most major reason for introducing higher density servers is to cater for increasing IT needs, for more effective use of space and more efficient data center operation.  The key concerns about doing so are the cooling of higher densities and power consumption, and this formed the major focus of the Paris Summit.

Research covered the perceptual differentiation between different cooling solutions. On the basis of seven prompted motivations (shown as the end points of the lines) different cooling solutions occupy different positions relative to each other.  Most of the solutions tend towards the meeting point of the seven axes indicating they are perceived to meet all of the areas of need.  Their tendencies are however different – both thermal storage devices and free cooling are perceived to major on benefits of efficiency and reduced ongoing costs.  The other four solutions are less easy to distinguish as they are mapped closer to the centre. Row-based and water-based cooling solutions are located close to the improvement of control and predictability; liquid refrigerant-based solutions between maintaining availability and meeting IT growth requirements, while rack-based cooling systems are mapped closer to the reduction of upfront costs.