FOCUS hosted a discussion between these DCIM vendors, here, Jeff Klaus of Intel poses the questions.

Q: JEFF KLAUS, Director, Data Center Solutions, Intel: By what degree are data centers and enterprises over-provisioning power and cooling based on derated or estimated power usage?

A: SOEREN BROGAARD JENSEN, VP Enterprise Management and Software Schneider Electric: "Typically, servers are de-rated by up to 50 or 60%, but this generally assumes that the server is going to be highly utilized. However, taking the industry norm of 5 – 6% server utilization means that the equipment might only be using 25% of the power quoted on the name plate. As a result, power systems could be over-provisioned by 100% before redundancy is factored in.

Real time information about actual CPU power consumption is useful for day-to-day data center operations. However, server (and other data center equipment) power requirements are also vital when planning data centers, to avoid over-provisioning and stranded capacity, and to ensure a higher degree of utilization throughout the operational life of the facility. The ability to model data center scenarios using an accurate library of assets is a key feature of DCIM in this respect."

A: FRED DIRLA, CEO, Fieldview Solutions: "Due to the fact that data center operators are extremely risk averse, over provisioning is a systemic problem. The common way to mitigate risk in a data center, that does not have micro data monitoring, is to over provision. It’s like wearing a belt and suspenders at the same time, then doubling the accessories just in case. However, when a micro data monitoring solution is properly implemented, over provisioning is reduced or eliminated.

Please note: micro monitoring is not the same as modeling from the name plate data, or some assumptions based on macro-level data— it’s real-time energy monitoring. Most of DCIM’s bad reputation is the result of convoluted marketing hype and erroneous modeling which drove up costs without a clear ROI."

A: PETER VAN DEVENTER, CEO, SynapSense: "This over-provisioning based on de-rated or estimated power usage is results in what is known as “stranded power”. Stranded power, by definition, is equal to allocated power minus consumed power. The use of de-rated faceplate ratings or published manufacturer average usage (plus a safety margin) may lead to capacity decisions that are overly conservative leading to wasted capacity, or too aggressive, leading to unplanned power outages.

Many companies have responded to a rising demand for compute, storage and network resources by adopting virtualization and blade server strategies. Both of these approaches “pack more computing into existing facilities” by increasing compute densities. However, they also have dramatically increased the per-rack loads from 5kW on average to sometimes exceed 25 kW. The identification and reclamation of stranded power has increased in importance. Companies using de-rated faceplate ratings or estimations are pretty common. Such companies are essentially guessing at their actual energy efficiency.

It is only through real-time, precise, actual data that companies can accurately benchmark their use of power against similar organizations and set more realistic budgets for per rack energy usage."

Q: JEFF KLAUS, Intel: What have been your top 3 use cases for demonstrating the value and ROI from your DCIM solutions?

A: PETER VAN DEVENTER, SynapSense: "Services: The focus is on a balanced data center environment that takes into account the prevention of air mixing, uniformly pressurized plenums and turndown of unnecessary cooling resources.

Technology: Automatically maintaining a data center in a balanced state in spite of changes to the IT Load allows data centers to have the on-going benefit of continued energy savings.

Utility Incentives: Leveraging the rebates offered by electrical utility companies for energy-saving equipment."

A: FRED DIRLA, Fieldview Solutions: "In no particular order: Optimize existing capacity (from a physical building perspective; Reduce bottlenecks in deployment process; Reduce electrical consumption through identifying inefficiencies."

A: SOEREN BROGAARD JENSEN, Schneider Electric: "Extend the lifetime of facilities by up to two years at a time achieved through better visibility of resources and the use of smart management tools. Connecting the constraints of the physical environment (power, cooling

air_ ow) with the demands of the IT operations. For example, virtualization has become a key data center strategy, but when you have a much denser environment and the servers are running hotter, because they’re busier.

And when workloads are moved around you need to ensure that there are adequate resources for the host machine running the application. The power of the DCIM solution is that it combines information from all of these domains so that decisions can be made in a more informed and lower risk manner."

Q: JEFF KLAUS, Intel: Who is winning the battle for data center control between IT and facilities management?

A: SOEREN BROGAARD JENSEN, Schneider Electric: "If this is a battle, then we’ve already lost. The advantage of DCIM is that it provides a common language for IT and facilities to communicate with each other, and it makes resources more transparent. In every sense, IT wants to be able to utilise the data center environment on a utility basis, facilities

needs to ensure capacity is there and that it is utilized optimally. The only win is therefore a win-win for all stakeholders."

A: FRED DIRLA, Fieldview Solutions: "Interesting question, since it implies there should be a winner or a loser. Perhaps we as vendors should help clear the playing field, such that there is a common goal of e_ ciency, cost reduction, and 100% uptime. Tools in many instances are geared towards one group or another and not necessarily aligned to the corporate mission. The implied battle often exists when a vendor chooses to pitch its technology to a single department rather than align DCIM to the overall company needs. IT and facilities titles should not matter, vendors need to continue to refine their offerings to meet a corporation’s goals. In doing so, the true value of DCIM will become apparent to each business unit via its demonstrated value to the overall company and proven data center cost reduction."

A: PETER VAN DEVENTER, SynapSense: "Traditionally in most facilities, the IT department operates the data center but the Facilities department pays the electrical bill. The misalignment of objectives leads to scenarios in which IT managers are more focused on indicators like uptime and performance and are less interested in other metrics like energy efficiency.

As IT departments continue to pack more compute power into existing floor space via strategies of virtualization and consolidation onto more powerful machines, facilities departments must devise how to satisfy the resultant increase in demand for power and cooling. So, in effect, IT needs have traditionally driven facilities to respond.

Regulatory requirements will ultimately drive IT departments to measure and monitor energy utilization, a shift from the paradigm that viewed this as “a problem for only the facilities department”.

Both stand to benefit from operational enhancements made available by integrated building management and IT management practices. Hence, no organization per se is winning the battle of controlling the data center. Both are evolving to adapt to the increasing overlap in their discipline."

Read Part 1 of the discussion online. 

Join the DatacenterDynamics Linkedin Group and take part in the discussion.

In the next part of the discussion, Fred Dirla, CEO Fieldview Solutions asks the questions including: WIll a DCIM solution eliminate the need for other monitoring tools used in today's enterprise environments such as BMS and EPMS? Please explain why or why not? 

The full discussion is available to read now in DatacenterDynamics Digital Edition - no registration required.