AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20090611143431.17bab653@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:mail.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<jduhadway@atrato.com>,<ckosher@atrato.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@exch1.onstor.net/INBOX	0	CCC025E7CDDBA5458676BB3123F19DE464AB599021@MAILSTORE.atrato.com
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:34:38 -0700
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: James DuHadway <jduhadway@atrato.com>
Cc: Cary Kosher <ckosher@atrato.com>
Subject: Re: power consumption figures
Message-ID: <20090611143438.7a38e494@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <CCC025E7CDDBA5458676BB3123F19DE464AB599021@MAILSTORE.atrato.com>
References: <20090601124349.183a011a@ripper.onstor.net>
	<CCC025E7CDDBA5458676BB3123F19DE464AB435A34@MAILSTORE.atrato.com>
	<CCC025E7CDDBA5458676BB3123F19DE464AB435A38@MAILSTORE.atrato.com>
	<20090610152150.634e9dac@ripper.onstor.net>
	<CCC025E7CDDBA5458676BB3123F19DE464AB598F31@MAILSTORE.atrato.com>
	<20090610153044.5358b438@ripper.onstor.net>
	<CCC025E7CDDBA5458676BB3123F19DE464AB598F4E@MAILSTORE.atrato.com>
	<20090611121641.5427541c@ripper.onstor.net>
	<CCC025E7CDDBA5458676BB3123F19DE464AB599021@MAILSTORE.atrato.com>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:49:44 -0700 James DuHadway
<jduhadway@atrato.com> wrote:

> Andy,
> 
>       480 for drives.  Always figure that you have to allow for max
> power consumption.  The is for the highest drive consumption.  In
> other words, the highest expected consumption of 160,320, or 500
> drives that we are using, there is some variation.
> 
> 	The floorboard and the 4 SAS expanders have consumption
> within the box.
> 
> 	No, as when you add a second SAID, you would add to
> additional power modules, so there is not gain.  I'll see if we have
> a power meter here.
> 
> As far as watts per TB, it will vary on the drive size.  With a 80TB
> SAID its 18.0 w per TB.
> 
> I'll let you know on the Power Meter? 

Excellent.  Thanks so much for the help.

Cheers,

a

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Sharp [mailto:andy.sharp@onstor.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 1:17 PM
> To: James DuHadway
> Cc: Cary Kosher
> Subject: Re: power consumption figures
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> Thanks for the breakdown, I know you must be quite busy.
> 
> A couple-three questions.
> 
> 1.  The 480 for the drives -- does that mean for enterprise 2.5"
>     drives?  I'm guessing 'no' but I wanted to check.
> 
> 2.  I'm not sure what the "Floorboard" refers to; there are 4 of them?
> 
> 3.  Can the PS conversion loss be spread out?  In other words, can two
>     disk chassis be run from one PS tray?
> 
> I'm drawing up just a bit because I'm thinking that if the average
> power consumption for "normal" storage is 40 watts/TB, then this puts
> the V1000 of 40TB with one head unit roughly in that ballpark, whereas
> I'm thinking I want it somewhat lower.
> 
> Our "cluster in a box" 2U dual gateway (67xx) is supposed to use
> 300 watts.  Next week, I'm going to run one with power going through
> a power meter to get the most accurate numbers possible.  Would it be
> possible for me to get access to a V1000 somewhere in the Bay area to
> do likewise with?  I know you're very busy, so thanks for any
> assistance.
> 
> Thanks for all your help,
> 
> Andy Sharp
> 
> 
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:34:31 -0700 James DuHadway
> <jduhadway@atrato.com> wrote:
> 
> > Andrew,
> >
> > 160 Drives range from			480
> > 4   Floorboard				170
> > 8   Fans					 70
> >     Overhead for power conversion   280
> >     Total				     1000
> >
> >
> 
> 
> > > On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 15:28:36 -0700 James DuHadway
> > > <jduhadway@atrato.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Cary/Andy, checking into this.
> > > >
> > > > Jim
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Cary Kosher
> > > > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:26 PM
> > > > To: Andrew Sharp
> > > > Cc: Don Ayers; James DuHadway
> > > > Subject: RE: power consumption figures
> > > > 
> > > > Jim, can you help Andy with this?  Thanks.
> > > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Andrew Sharp [mailto:andy.sharp@onstor.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 12:44 PM
> > > > To: Cary Kosher
> > > > Cc: Don Ayers
> > > > Subject: power consumption figures
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 09:18:00 -0700 Cary Kosher
> > > > <ckosher@atrato.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Hi Andy,
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is some data on power consumption for the V1000.  The
> > > > > controller is 425W.  The SAID is 1000W.  A system can have
> > > > > multiple SAIDs/controller.  As an example, a 240TB system (3
> > > > > SAID's, 100W each
> > > > > + 1 controller, 425W) would be a total of 3425W.  All 160
> > > > > drives are always spinning.  Thus, there is no "at rest" data.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let me know if you have other questions.
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Cary,
> > > > 
> > > > So my first question is what do these numbers include.  The 1KW
> > > > for the SAID sounds high to me.  From Thomas M. Ruwart's white
> > > > paper, one drive consumes 2.3 watts, which puts the power draw
> > > > from just the drives at about 370.  Can the fans and power
> > > > supplies really more than double that?  It sounds like these are
> > > > maybe 750GB drives, so maybe they use more power than the 320GB
> > > > drives mentioned in the paper. Still, they shouldn't be double?
> > > > 
> > > > Also, does the head unit (controller) actually use 450 watts or
> > > > is that what it's PS is rated for?  I thought Don said something
> > > > about 250, but it was pretty loud in the lab, perhaps I
> > > > mis-heard.
> > > > 
> > > > At 1000watts per SAID, it would be tough to get 500TB in a
> > > > single rack.  Unless you know of a 120A rack ~:^)  The reason I
> > > > mention that is the paper mentions 1PB would fit in 2 racks.
> > > > 
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > 
> > > > a
> > > > 
> > > > Information contained in this e-mail transmission is privileged,
> > > > confidential and covered by the electronic Communications
> > > > Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. If you are not the
> > > > intended recipient, do not read, distribute, or reproduce this
> > > > transmission. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
> > > > notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please
> > > > delete the message from your system. Thank you in advance for
> > > > your cooperation.
