Perhaps someone could summarise cogently what was wrong with water cooling the first time around (which, yes, I was there to witness). :-)
I surmise it wasn't the water cooling so much as the space and the energy consumption that caused it to be necessary. Martin Packer, Mainframe Performance Consultant, Software Group Worldwide Banking Center of Excellence, IBM +44-7802-245-584 email: martin_pac...@uk.ibm.com Twitter / Facebook IDs: MartinPacker IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu> wrote on 16/02/2010 19:23:08: > From: > > Ed Gould <ps2...@yahoo.com> > > To: > > IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > > Date: > > 16/02/2010 19:23 > > Subject: > > What was old is new again (water chilled) > > Sent by: > > IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu> > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100211090748.htm > > > New supercomputer uses water-cooled technology to save energy > (February 16, 2010) -- A new supercomputer uses a unique water- > cooled technology achieves 30 percent savings in electrical consumption. ... > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO > Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html > Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
