mingui, wouldn't designing the hardware architecture such that there is no high baseline rather than a more demand based power draw curve be the better alternative then ?
only box local changes needed, immediate returns, no need to bother the network with the fact that the local box cannot do the power housekeeping well ? /hannes On Feb 8, 2013, at 9:53 AM, Mingui Zhang wrote: > Hi Hannes, > > "Optimization" tries to empty all links on one line-card with priority, then > this line card can be shut off to save the high baseline power. > > Thanks, > Mingui Zhang > Huawei Technologies > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Hannes Gredler >> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 4:25 PM >> To: Tony Li >> Cc: Shankar Raman M J; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Power aware networks : Comments requested from routing >> community >> >> tony, >> >> agree that saving power is a worthwhile goal; >> >> in fact existing hardware technology is making that happen today by >> e.g. automatically shutting down unused lookup engines, CPU cores, memory >> banks etc. >> when there is low processing demand. >> >> the part where i am not yet convinced is that additional off-peak >> "optimization" >> of >> infrastructure links by e.g. computing a routing mesh which only uses >> 70% of the nominal links does actually give much power savings. >> >> note that line cards which are running at 70% have already throttled down >> their >> power consumption - so what is the point emptying the link and loading >> another ? >> appears to me a zero sum game. >> >> my concern about the core (and SP edge) is not about business or technology - >> it is more about if we try to optimize an already optimized (and solved) >> problem. >> >> /hannes >> >> On Feb 7, 2013, at 5:09 PM, Tony Li wrote: >> >>> >>> On Feb 7, 2013, at 5:07 AM, Hannes Gredler <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Do you think that optimizing a part of the network which gives only limited >>>> overall savings is a worthwhile goal ? >>> >>> >>> Hannes, >>> >>> I'll just point out that this argument that you and Eric are espousing is >>> skirting >> dangerously close to the quagmire of business. And we know from long >> experience that the IETF does not do business models. >>> >>> I'd like to strongly suggest that we simply restrict ourselves to the goal >>> of >> saving power. I think that we can agree, in general, that saving power is a >> worthwhile goal. As to whether or not it is significant or makes economic >> sense is very much an issue that should be left to the operator community to >> decide. Limited overall savings may be worthwhile in one context and >> pointless >> in another. >>> >>> I know of one country where they are purportedly mandating power reductions. >> In such situations, saving that last watt is the difference between a fine >> and not. >> On the other hand, in a situation where power is very cheap, it's obviously >> silly. >>> >>> Let's not argue about the marginal value of energy. That's a business model >> issue. Let's talk about how technology can actually save power. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Tony >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rtgwg mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
