http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/ME2/Console/XmlSyndication/Display/RSS.asp?xsid=9B4711CEDB564D349F60F71BEC5FF396 Nick Parfitt's Blog http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&AudID=E5BD2FF22AF74DF3A0D5F4E519A61511&type=Blog&mod=View+Topic&mid=67D6564029914AD3B204AD35D8F5F780&tier=7&id=AAD9F2D96BFE4A018A4D3F1CF56C1D03 For anyone concerned with future legislative impacts on the UK datacenter sector the evening of 1st March was at the very least an interesting one. The battle of the acronyms (CRC versus CCA) took place under the auspices of the BCS DCSG (Data Centre Specialist Group). The evening posed the question as to whether any attempt to move the sector away from the impending roll-out of the CRC through organizing itself as a recognised industry sector and becoming eligible to negotiate its own Climate Change Agreement would be a possible or worthwhile exercise. Debate was fuelled by two initial presentations - Liam Newcombe made the case for the CRC, Rupert Butt the case for the CCA and later by short, sharp impact statements from key UK sector organizations. This was not a black and white Commons-style take no prisoners debate, at times those making the case for their acronym appeared to believe less in their case than did Dr Crippen’s defence lawyer. But that was as it should be as, under scrutiny both options include core ambiguities – the CCA as open to the possibility of further legislative intervention on an industry that has ‘organised’ itself and the CRC by the curiously relative means of assessing rewards and penalties and the ambiguity associated with being able to ‘outsource’ carbon commitment. By the end of the evening those in favour of CCA had increased but as our own research around our events covering this theme in 2009 indicated, for an industry based on precision the proof of concept here has yet to be fully tested … Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:00:00 EST AAD9F2D96BFE4A018A4D3F1CF56C1D03 http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&AudID=E5BD2FF22AF74DF3A0D5F4E519A61511&type=Blog&mod=View+Topic&mid=67D6564029914AD3B204AD35D8F5F780&tier=7&id=7FAF6E67F8694096A0E36A875D36D723 From out of nowhere in the first half of 2009 fear of legislation emerged as the fastest growing area of concern among US datacenter owners and operators. Through the autumn and winter of 2009/2010 as the other main legislative objective of the Administration wound its way unsteadily through its own labyrinthine legislative process, levels of concerns about energy legislation grew to a level equivalent or greater to those of the UK, by then grappling with its own (perceived) Carbon Reduction Commitment hydra. And the sweep of concern in the US is broad by any definition, taking in owners and operators in different sectors, responsible for different facility profiles and, possibly conclusively, including both the current President’s home city and the home state of his predecessor. Will US markets follow the UK example and see attitudes progressively polarize as details and impacts become nearer and clearer? Or since legislation is proven generally to be perceived as more threatening the more remote its source, will more local application see a moderation of what appear to be very high levels of concern? Research from our early March New York event has acted in previous years as a key indicator for the 12 months ahead for the industry at large and this year will make even more interesting reading. Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:00:00 EST 7FAF6E67F8694096A0E36A875D36D723 http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&AudID=E5BD2FF22AF74DF3A0D5F4E519A61511&type=Blog&mod=View+Topic&mid=67D6564029914AD3B204AD35D8F5F780&tier=7&id=E6EB86C9E37843E2846CA93EE7079B1C I’m continuing editorial precedent here by blogging about a blog which was about another blog. Editor’s blog (23/10) referenced David Yen, MD of Juniper Networks whose blog provides the title above (excepting the parentheses). My contributions here are not technical but based on observations from the extensive information we’ve collected over the past few years. And this I think indicates that the legacy era may yet have a while to run. In 2009 one in four organizations operates only facilities that might be defined as ‘legacy’ and only around 12% appear to have moved into the brave new world at the other end of the spectrum. We see also that there is an intermediate stage between ‘legacy’ and ‘future’ (use whatever term you prefer) based on configuring facilities where possible towards the efficient support of higher densities. Where this stage is skipped, markets show a strange ‘two steps forward, three steps back’ trend as they attempt to balance resources in and performance out and succeed only moderately at either. Russia may prove to be a test case for an industry future – a high proportion of recent, smaller and higher density facilities indicating a strong commitment to IT architectures to counter very major concerns about power reliability, cooling etc. etc. Maybe this is just history and technology has moved on. So I’m not disagreeing with the suggested future picture on the basis of technical potential. But levels of adoption and future consideration of the cloud appear sluggish and qualitative analysis suggests the battle may be need to be fought well beyond the technical arena. Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:00:00 EST E6EB86C9E37843E2846CA93EE7079B1C We see also that there is an intermediate stage between ‘legacy’ and ‘future’ (use whatever term you prefer) based on configuring facilities where possible towards the efficient support of higher densities. Where this stage is skipped, markets show a strange ‘two steps forward, three steps back’ trend as they attempt to balance resources in and performance out and succeed only moderately at either. Russia may prove to be a test case for an industry future – a high proportion of recent, smaller and higher density facilities indicating a strong commitment to IT architectures to counter very major concerns about power reliability, cooling etc. etc.
Maybe this is just history and technology has moved on. So I’m not disagreeing with the suggested future picture on the basis of technical potential. But levels of adoption and future consideration of the cloud appear sluggish and qualitative analysis suggests the battle may be need to be fought well beyond the technical arena.]]> http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&AudID=E5BD2FF22AF74DF3A0D5F4E519A61511&type=Blog&mod=View+Topic&mid=67D6564029914AD3B204AD35D8F5F780&tier=7&id=05F9C5BF82EF4CDF99748D0B2283F2E3 Spend enough time with a mass of market data and you start to see things. And one trend I’ve seen recently I have named the ‘5 kilowatt rule’. Broadly it goes like this: Once your datacenter’s power demand per rack passes over 5kW things change. (And it doesn’t have to be the whole datacenter just a couple of racks will do). Your levels of concern about operating and funding the datacenter will rise, virtually across the board. To alleviate any potential risk to your blood pressure, your adoption of ‘whole of datacenter’ strategies will rise also. Your appetite for further increases in power demand will lessen considerably (although rest assured that getting from 6 kW/rack to 8 kW/rack appears nothing like as pivotal as getting to 6 from 4). Precision cooling, automation, monitoring, most technologies with possible efficiency benefit take on a new lease of life and you (or someone close to you) may take a renewed interest in outsourcing. This I call the 5 kilowatt rule. I am confident it will do for datacenter management and planning what Dr Spock did for childcare. Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:00:00 EST 05F9C5BF82EF4CDF99748D0B2283F2E3