Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power IT

Data Centers And DC Power 379

mstansberry writes "In the final article in a series on the price of power in the data center, IT pros weigh the pros and cons of direct current-powered servers. A limited number of companies make servers with the power supplies removed with DC power distributed to multiple machines from a single unit. It saves power by skipping an extra conversion from alternating current (AC). Telcos have been using this method for years, but some data center pros are leery of taking on the new systems. It's not something people are familiar with and if they break down, you have to hire a specialized engineer to come fix them. But if they're saving even half of what they're reported to save on the electric bill, companies could afford to hire the engineers." We've reported on previous articles in the series.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Data Centers And DC Power

Comments Filter:
  • by mrm677 ( 456727 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @11:35AM (#14008219)
    Does big iron still use 3-phase power?

    • There is no standard Telco DC connector. This can cause headaches since you need special connectors and a AC-DC box for every type of DC appliance you have. Most every AC appliance uses one of a few types of industry standard AC connectors.
    • It isn't three phase like a HVAC blower motor, it is three separate legs using a common neutral, *** BUT ***, if each of the three legs draws a different amount of current, there is an imbalance on the neutral and computers hate that.
    • I was wondering if they could use 3 phase power going into the system. Since it is much easier and efficient to set up a 3 phase AC/DC converter, then they would probably want to use that if they could.
    • by sirwired ( 27582 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:53PM (#14009075)
      Does big iron still use 3-phase power?

      Yes. Mainframes, large UNIX systems, and the storage boxes that connect to them still require three-phase. (I am a storage specialist.)

      SirWired
    • Yes, real big iron still uses 3-phase power. I can only speak on behalf of large IBM system (zSeries, etc). These systems will accept 192VAC to 508VAC on the input, 3-phase Delta. This means no neutral required. Additionally, they will even run with one phase totally missing. The first power conversion stage in any piece of their 'big iron' is a very large AC to DC converter, rated for a 350VDC output at over 42kW. Actually it's six 7.5kW converters paralled, and these are redundant/hot swappable. To
      • by ThePowerGorilla ( 930379 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @02:15PM (#14009897)
        Sorry, I boned the formatting the first try...

        Yes, real big iron still uses 3-phase power. I can only speak on behalf of large IBM system (zSeries, etc). These systems will accept 192VAC to 508VAC on the input, 3-phase Delta. This means no neutral required. Additionally, they will even run with one phase totally missing.

        The first power conversion stage in any piece of their 'big iron' is a very large AC to DC converter, rated for a 350VDC output at over 42kW. Actually it's six 7.5kW converters paralled, and these are redundant/hot swappable. Totally modular, with no cable connections. This block is about 95% efficient.

        This DC is then distributed to the rest of the system power supplies, with redundant cabling supplying all point of load converters. All point of load converters are also redundant and hot swap. These converters have a range of efficiencies, but are typically much better than industry standards. A DC/DC converter in the z9 can source 1000A alone on the CPU Vcore level (12 of these supplies are in the machine). Supplies are used for CPU nodes, I/O cages, blowers and refrigeration.

        All blowers are 3-phase DC-brushless type, with the 3-phase synthesized off the 350VDC feeds. The blowers are usually 300W or larger, each.

        The CPU refrigeration is also run by 3-phase compressors, this power also being synthesized off of 350VDC. This is done to allow a conventional off-the-shelf compressor to be run off any line voltage, and ride through phase losses (as this is seen by the bulk AC/DC converter instead).

        The 'big iron' also supports built in UPS cabability, allowing you to connect battery packs directly to the bulk AC/DC converters. A machine will handle six 400V@2.5Ah battery packs connected to it. This feature is used to ensure a system such as a z9 has true 100% availability, and won't suffer a hard shutdown due to careless datacenter workers or electricians.

        In short, the article is intend to address small white box systems that use $12 power supplies with very poor reliability and efficiencies.

        And to another poster that brought up 3-phase being more efficient for power conversion...that's not really true these days, as everything requires power-factor correction. Nothing in the IT uses huge three-phase bridge rectifiers and phase-regulated primaries anymore.

  • by ch-chuck ( 9622 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @11:37AM (#14008246) Homepage
    Tesla, you're fired. --Thomas Edison
    • by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) <akaimbatman@gmaYEATSil.com minus poet> on Friday November 11, 2005 @11:45AM (#14008307) Homepage Journal
      To be pedantic for a moment, Tesla quit after Edison screwed him over on a $50,000 bonus he was promised.

      But you're sentiment is correct. Edison never really believed in AC power.
      • by Shakrai ( 717556 )

        But you're sentiment is correct. Edison never really believed in AC power.

        Actually he was a pretty firm supporter of AC where the electric chair was concerned.

        The original example of FUD!

      • by nurb432 ( 527695 )
        But westinghouse did believe in it .. who then gave Tesla a job.

        But later on he screwed Tesla anyway.

        Though admittedly, Nikola was not much of a businessman, which is why while he was perhaps the most brilliant scientist to ever exist on this planet, he died virtually pennyless.
        • by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) <akaimbatman@gmaYEATSil.com minus poet> on Friday November 11, 2005 @01:18PM (#14009335) Homepage Journal
          But westinghouse did believe in it .. who then gave Tesla a job.

          Westinghouse didn't give Tesla a job, he contracted with Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing for R&D and licensed the AC patents. Eventually Tesla released Westinghouse from paying royalties to prevent the company from going under. (The AC/DC wars nearly bankrupt both Edison and Westinghouse.)

          Though admittedly, Nikola was not much of a businessman

          Indeed. He was always a little too paranoid. Instead of learning how to properly use the laws and courts to protect his work, he felt that the only option was to keep his work super-secret. The sad part about this is that we still don't fully understand some of his inventions. For example, take his electric car. How did he manage to power that thing at such high velocities given the technology of the day? The answer is still a mystery even today. (And a favorite of the free energy quacks, I might add.)

          which is why while he was perhaps the most brilliant scientist to ever exist on this planet, he died virtually pennyless.

          At least in part, that had to do with all the equipment he was purchasing to perform his grounded power experiments. He had this idea that he could run power through the Earth itself, allowing anything that touched the surface of the Earth to tap into the grid. Such a concept would have been a boon for electric vehicles. Sadly, his theories on the subject were later proven incorrect, meaning that he wasted his money and time on a dead end.
          • by gilboooo ( 907368 )
            The Tesla grounded power experiments have been used to develop and make feasible the very low frequency and very long range communication systems for submarines (emission only) using earth's crust upper part as resonator.
  • What about houses? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jolyonr ( 560227 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @11:38AM (#14008253) Homepage
    I've always wondered (from a non-technical point of view) whether there was a benefit in having our homes wired up with two sockets (or maybe a 5 pin mains plug) giving standard AC voltage and a low-current DC voltage as well (12V?). So many devices only need low voltage, wouldn't we all benefit in having a power system in our houses in this way?

    Jolyon
    • by n0dalus ( 807994 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @11:46AM (#14008318) Journal
      I thinks it's a really good idea.
      If there were several pins, many different voltages would be possible, and a device could even use more than one voltage from one plug (eg, it could draw 2V for a relay, 4V for a power indicator, and the standard AC for the actual thing it's powering.)
      By not having to have transformers and big resistors inside all the household devices, there would be huge savings in power, things wouldn't get so hot, wouldn't need such big heatsinks, there would be far less electromagnetic radiation around the place (which is probably responsible for a lot of people getting sick etc), and it's safer too (devices that only need a small DC power source won't electrocute you when you drop them in some water.)
      • by interiot ( 50685 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:40PM (#14008938) Homepage
        There would be a savings in power, but you'd need huge wires in between each socket. See this chart [powerstream.com]. As voltage goes down, amps go up. Amps go up, and wire size goes up.

        Granted, you may not need to carry a lot of amps at 2V. However, no matter what voltage/current you pick, it's much easier (in terms of wiring cost) to use higher voltage for electricity distribution.

        I think what the main article was discussing is changing 120 AC into 120 DC centrally, but still having the 120 DC => 2v DC conversion done right where it's needed.

      • by Shakrai ( 717556 )

        there would be far less electromagnetic radiation around the place (which is probably responsible for a lot of people getting sick etc)

        Since when was non-ionizing EM radiation dangerous? Besides, even if it was, I highly doubt that your computer PSU or little brick power supply for your cordless phone are wasting that much energy as EM. When you consider that most little brick power supplies are running most of the waste is lost to heat and not EM I highly doubt it amounts to much. Even your typical P

        • "Since when was non-ionizing EM radiation dangerous?"

          It isn't.

          There are three parts to assessing something like this.

          First, is there some physical method consistent with known science by which injury could occur? In this case, no.

          Second, do controlled experiments on human or lab animals show an effect? In this case, no.

          Third, do statistical studies show a correlation? In this case, not when they are done competently. The problem is that a lot of studies have been done by people who don't understan

          • by nido ( 102070 ) <nido56@noSPAm.yahoo.com> on Friday November 11, 2005 @02:08PM (#14009838) Homepage
            "Since when was non-ionizing EM radiation dangerous?"
            It isn't.

            don't be so sure... Living bodies are incredibly complex electrical devices. I think it arrogant to assume artificial electric fields cannot have an effect on their proper operation.

            Now if you look at the question of: Are there biological effects, the engineers and the physicists say absolutely not. Their view in general of what living systems consist of is that the cells are little plastic bags filled with minestrone soup. And you can then with that sort of a concept calculate the field strength and the frequencies you would need to produce an effect on the minestrone soup. And this is exactly the concept that was employed after it became apparent that radar systems could heat up the human body. The physicists that were involved in answering the question: Are there effects? And at what level do they occur? And what would be a safe level? Basically, they followed a basic precept which was to consider a spherical cow, a circular oval object filled with conducting solution and composed of a skin that is transparent to the radio frequency waves that microwave generators produce. And on that basis, they asked: How much does it take to heat this up? Where does the cow's temperature start to rise?

            And that number was calculated and confirmed in actual procedures in the lab using the spherical cow concept. They said, "OK, that's the number at which you are going to start heating people. Let's say that's not such a good idea and we'll set a level ten times lower as the safe levels."

            That level was applied for several decades to everything that concerned electromagnetic pollution. Of course, this is not correct. Any biologist can tell you that the body is much more complicated than that and the work I had done up to that point had involved the body's actual use of electric currents generated in the body that regulated certain things like healing. Wound healing is associated with a rather specific electrical current and voltage. So, the premise that was applied by the physicists and the engineers was erroneous from the start.

            That's number one. Number two, what would be the normal electromagnetic environment assuming that we're starting from scratch at Edison's time - and not Edison either because he went to DC current to light the light bulb. It was Nikolai Tesla who conceived of the system we presently use and who, incidentally, gets no credit for it: the 60 second electromagnetic field that is carried by power lines, the big lines that are strung across the country, and provides the current that comes into your home and appears in the wall socket and you use to run the coffee maker and the TV and all the rest of the things in the house 60 cycles. That didn't even exist one hundred years ago.
            (emphasis added) From an interview of Robert O. Becker, M. D. [energyfields.org], who was a pioneer in the study of natural electrical currents in the human body.

            • I think it arrogant to assume artificial electric fields cannot have an effect on their proper operation.

              Of course it would be. That is why I explained things the way I did. There is a difference between saying "It has been proven that 60 Hz fields do not affect humans" and saying "There is no evidence that 60 Hz fields affect humans."

              We can speculate all day about what could conceivably affect a human body, given the limits to our understanding. But that leads to tinfoil-hat country unless we look fo

    • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @11:51AM (#14008377) Journal
      Transmitting DC over long distances doesn't work very well - you want to transmit at a high voltage, and then use it at a low voltage to minimise both danger and loss to resistance. With AC, it's relatively easy to convert to a between voltages - with DC it isn't.

      That said, there's no reason why the power couldn't come to your house as AC and then be turned into DC centrally by an efficient PSU in the basement (or wherever). The only minor problem is that DC is somewhat more dangerous than AC - if you touch a live AC wire you can pull away from it more easily than if you are in a DC circuit due to the effect on nerves.

      • by jsveiga ( 465473 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:15PM (#14008669)
        I think there is at least one reason not to distribute DC inside the house: The same reason car battery contacts get yucky after some time.

        AC prevents that galvanic(?) effect to occur on the house outlets.

      • Transmitting DC over long distances doesn't work very well

        I've heard this before, but I haven't heard a terribly good explanation for why.

        HVDC Pacific Intertie between Oregon and California:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Intertie [wikipedia.org]
        http://www.transmission.bpa.gov/cigresc14/Compendi um/PACIFIC.htm [bpa.gov]

        I worked on a transmission sales automation project at BPA, and I seem to recall some very good explanations for why they had a 2000+ MW, 400kV transmission hop.
        • AC vs. DC (Score:5, Informative)

          by Crispy Critters ( 226798 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @01:10PM (#14009259)
          "I've heard this before, but I haven't heard a terribly good explanation for why."

          Easy.

          First, DC actually is better for transmitting power over long distances. AC current tends to concentrate in the surface of the conductor, leading to higher current densities and larger ohmic losses.

          So, why do we use AC almost everywhere? Transformers. It is relatively easy and efficient to use a transformer to change voltages of AC power. For large electrical lines, the voltage is cranked way up, which means the current is reduced. The less current, the smaller the losses due to resistance in the wires. So power is transmitted at high voltages, so the current and hence losses are low. Then, near the place where power is needed, transformers change the power to lower voltage, higher current. (This is because you can't have house wiring and appliances that won't arc or explode when hit with 13,800 V.)

          Converting between high and low voltages with DC power is much more difficult, and requires more complex equipment. (An AC transformer is two pieces of wire wrapped around a chunk of iron.)

      • The only minor problem is that DC is somewhat more dangerous than AC

        Yeah, Electric Chairs used AC power because it's LESS DANGEROUS, right?
      • Human safety. AC at the same voltage / current is a lot less dangerous than DC. AC makes your muscles shake but DC makes them tense. If you grab DC you will just hold on tighter the more current you take.
      • Efficiency. DC loses more energy per foot / mile than AC.
      • Conversion capability. It's easy to convert AC from one voltage to another by running it through a coil and taking a tap off the other side. You can't do this with DC. Either you need a fancy transister circuit (with lots of heat an inef
      • Human safety. AC at the same voltage / current is a lot less dangerous than DC. AC makes your muscles shake but DC makes them tense. If you grab DC you will just hold on tighter the more current you take.

        If you think of the elecricioan falling off the ladder, let me tell you that a 100V jolt will make you jump as well.

        Efficiency. DC loses more energy per foot / mile than AC.

        Untrue since AC has higher peak current and there fore higher losses in ohmic conducting situations.

        Conversion capability. It's easy to

      • Actually the 50-60Hz of household AC isn't all that great for power conversion by today's standards. People either rectify it and throw it through a second higher frequency oscillator or use a custom active-switching DSP solution.

        • by jsveiga ( 465473 )
          We're all concentrating on the electronic, switching power supply stuff.

          What about the big power guzzlers in the house: Refrigerators and Air conditioners? Those AC motors suck power directly from 220/110 VAC, and isn't AC better for these cheap induction motors?
    • I think the best way to do this is to use a smart bus, reminiscent of USB. You plug in the device, and it indicates "I'd like 5V DC", or whatever, and the other side provides the appropriate voltage. A powerbar would have to say "I'd like 120 VAC" or "I'd like raw AC power", then be smart enough to switch that to the desired voltage for each device.

      You could only have one plug on each wire from the smart hub.

      Costs would be higher due to all the electronics involved, but they'd come down with mass produc

    • The key phrase is "transformer". They can be used with AC. The other key phrase is "copper". If you want to power a 2000W heater from 12V, you need something like 150A, which requires something like 150mm^2 copper lines (scaling up from 1.5 m^2 for 16A, it might be even worse). Thiese cables are a) unwieldly b) thick and c) very expensive. Copper is not cheap. So you go with 230V or 115V to the wall socket and convert then.

      Also keep in mind that the switching power supplies used in computers are not usefu
    • The first step (Score:4, Interesting)

      by dsginter ( 104154 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:08PM (#14008581)
      The first step will be in the home office. Have you taken a look at the rat's nest under most desks? Most of it is AC/DC conversion. If the industry could just arrive at a DC power standard, we could start with a single AC/DC "box" under the desk with a standard plug end for all DC peripheraps. Add daisy chaining and wireless USB or Bluetooth, and that nest is largely eliminated.

      At this point, we could start to build it into houses and other buildings.
    • One of the big problems would be voltage regulation. Most electronics devices would require local DC/DC convertors to provide regulated DC power to their circuits. So you still have a zillion individual power supplies, the only difference is that they get bulk power from a DC feed instead of an AC feed.

      I doubt many people would be happy with the large copper bus bars that would be needed to distribute low voltage DC at any reasonable power level.

  • by Anonymous Cowpat ( 788193 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @11:38AM (#14008254) Journal
    ac goes into data centres, systems run on dc. Either it gets distributed to each computer as ac and converted in a medium-sized box in the back of each system, or it gets converted in one big box and distributed to the systems as dc.
    The question is of the efficiency saving of doing all the converting in a big box against the efficiency loss of piping it around the data centre as dc, and wether you get a large total net saving (which I suspect that you do, since even inside the data centre, it's not going far)
    • by qwertphobia ( 825473 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @11:48AM (#14008348)

      Power gets converted to DC anyhow to keep the UPS batteries charged. If the lights go out, the DC from the batteries is converted back to AC to go to the power supplies and back to DC inside each system.

      No, it doesn't take as much power to keep the batteries charged as it would to run the center off DC, but that's not the point. Anyone with a large UPS already has a beefy AC/DC and DC/AC conversion system in place.

      I would also assume one large converter / power supply would be more efficient for power and heat than hundreds (in my data center) or thousands (in a big one) of little power supplies. Any thoughts on that?

      • The conversion from and to the UPS is saved. Every watt that is lost in the conversions is converted into heat. That heat has to be cooled of by cooling systems using also an enormoes amount of energy.

        By saving 20% on the conversion you also save 20% on the cooling. But also the power can now run in a different room where the temperature condition might be less demanding, so even more cooling might be saved.
    • don't forget your UPS is going to convert AC to DC, then it has to convert the DC power to AC to distribute to the servers which then take that AC and convert it to DC. When you're running off battery you can skip a DC to AC to DC conversion (instead you can get DC straight from the battery, and feed DC into the servers)
    • Typically if one converts (technically the wrong term, but that's not important here) from AC to DC in a centralized manner, then the batteries can be fed directly.

      If main power fails in an AC data center, the UPS systems need to take the DC from the batteries and convert to AC, then distribute, then each machine needs to convert back to DC. That's terribly wasteful, since neither of these conversions is anywhere near perfect efficiency. In a DC data center, the UPS systems are just the batteries, so th

      • If main power fails in an AC data center, the UPS systems need to take the DC from the batteries and convert to AC, then distribute, then each machine needs to convert back to DC. That's terribly wasteful, since neither of these conversions is anywhere near perfect efficiency. In a DC data center, the UPS systems are just the batteries, so they can hold much longer.

        Regardless of incoming power status, almost all large UPS's are always in the electricity path, so there is always AC-->DC-->AC-->DC.
      • Sure, but how often do the backup generators connect inside the UPS?

        My understanding is that the UPS's will typically have a power source switch in front of them, not behind, and when the emergency generator kicks in, its power goes through the UPS just like the normal utility power.

        There's a very good reason for that, too. Virtually every UPS will clean up the power feed, and backup generators are usually 'dirtier' power than mains power - the last thing you want is spikes and droops from the backup genny
      • But then, you have an AC to DC unit anyway, so you can just add the generator to the AC side. Indeed, generator and battery could even be treated as basically independent systems: As soon as the generator is running, from the point of view of the batteries the external energy supply works again.

        The system would then basically be:

        External AC
        -> Generator unit (can replace external AC with generator AC, but needs some time to start the generator)
        -> AC/DC unit
        -> Battery unit (can buffer short power out
        • In an ideal situation yes, however when the power comes back out of the batteries (UPS) it is switched back to AC for distribution to the individual systems before they change it back into DC for the circuit.
      • Rectifiers, the devices that turn AC into DC, AKA diodes, are cheap and easy. So there wouldn't be a problem running the system.
    • The article says

      Electricity comes from the utility in alternating current (AC). [...] AC is converted to DC at the power distribution unit, then converted to AC again to push out to the servers, and is converted one more time to DC at each individual server.

      Later on, the article talks about batteries, so I'm guessing that the "power distribution unit" is actually a UPS, and that's why they need the extra conversions:

      mains -> AC -> DC -> UPS -> DC -> AC -> DC -> server

      The

    • As long as you're feeding a site with AC (this is the only efficient way to transmit it from the Hoover dam to some farm in Iowa), then at some point, there is conversion from AC to DC before it gets to the circuits of any computer system.

      Where there *could* be some benefit is where you have larger, more efficient converters very near the point of use. If you figure each power supply inside each box is 50% efficient, but a single big one is 75%, then you reap a net benefit (totally rhetorical - I have no i
    • Conventional system:

      AC -> Building -> UPS -> DC converter -> Battery -> AC converter -> Server Power Supply -> Components

      DC-only

      AC -> High efficiency DC conversion -> Battery -> Server Components
    • My guess is that you can power these big PSUs directly from the AC the utility delivers, i.e. 7.5kV or the like. THat is the only way to save one cobversion. The UPS argument some people present is bogus, since the UPS is not normally active.
    • This is similar to an idea I had a while back, which is if I were in charge of the data center for a lean dot com, I would install laptops in the datacenter. They have built in UPS for up to about 2 hours of run time. They are powered directly off of DC, so there is no need for DC to AC conversion coming off of the DataCenters UPS. I suspect that Laptops would generate less heat, and be reasonably power efficient. Lots of cheap laptops on trays might be cost comparable to 1u server boxs at the same densi
    • The question is of the efficiency saving of doing all the converting in a big box against the efficiency loss of piping it around the data centre as dc, and wether you get a large total net saving (which I suspect that you do, since even inside the data centre, it's not going far)

      There's more to it than that. The problem is that essentially all of these systems run on UPSs. A UPS takes the AC in and converts it to DC to charge a battery. It then takes the DC from the battery and converts it back to AC

  • by dawggy_daddy ( 905096 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @11:38AM (#14008256)
    trouble shooting and correcting DC power is simpler than working with linear power supplies. Unfamiliarity is the problem, not the technology.
    • True - and I'm all for it, but the only issue is that you have a single point of failure - lose your big DC power supply and your entire datacentre (or a chunk of it, like a whole rack or four) goes down. Lose one 'PC' switch mode power supply in a cluster and you lose one machine for the duration, not the whole lot.
  • I wish homes were wired for DC. I think we'd save a lot of power doing the conversion in one place per household/street, rather than using a separate transformer for each device. Plus you'd wouldn't have to waste time trying to find your devices transformer, or waste space when packing the device when you go on holiday.
  • by CyricZ ( 887944 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @11:40AM (#14008272)
    Any truly serious data centre would already have at least several power engineers on their staff.

    If such a data centre is just now considering bringing such people in, then they have serious operational problems. They're not getting professionals in to do the jobs that professionals must do.

  • What we really need are pluggable racks. i.e. Move all the hardware necessary to support the blades (power supply, network switch, cooling, KVM interface, etc.) right into the rack case, then design a common interface to plug the blades into. Then an admin only needs to plug in the new server and run with it. No need to mess with tonnes of wires.

    Wait. Did I just reinvent a 64 way Sun server? Imagine that.
  • I'd love to see rapid advances in DC power distribution systems. Other areas would benefit, too. Consider alone the reduction in RF noise in electronic systems that would be achieved by eliminating all those transformers and switching power supplies. Granted, DC/DC converters still use switching power supplies - but there lies my wish for advancement.
  • by M. Baranczak ( 726671 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @11:51AM (#14008378)
    I don't see what the problem is. Each box would be built exactly the same as before, except it wouldn't have a power supply unit - just a straight wire from the power socket. And the central power supply is just a big AC/DC converter - most EEs should already be familiar with those. There's not really any new technology here, it's just slightly re-arranged.
    • Yeah, but you need to ensure that anyone playing with high current DC sources has some respect for the potential hazards - ever seen someone drop a screwdriver between 5V and 0V buses on a 300A distribution system!?
      • No.. but I did once see the screw driver from a 480 Delta-Wye (sp?). Anyway...

        It should be noted that there will still be power supplies in the computers. 48 volt is the distribution system, and then your computer uses 12 volt and 5 volt for main stuff... and then the processor usually does its own thing off in lala land. It's just a lot more efficient conversion than the mess we have in most places with AC->DC->AC->DC

      • ever seen someone drop a screwdriver between 5V and 0V buses on a 300A distribution system!?

        No problem at all. Turns immediately to metal vapour and will likely not even interrupt server operation.
        And with todays computers that would more likely be 12V/3000A ;-)

        Of course the human being standinge besides this events may suffer some serious damage....
  • wasted servers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by artg ( 24127 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @11:55AM (#14008432)
    "His department conducted a study that said 80% of those servers were running at 5% to 15% utilization"

    Why such low utilization ?
    Any other industry would scrap 80% of that equipment to save costs and power.
  • DC in Telco (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Comen ( 321331 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @11:58AM (#14008461)
    I started working with IP in a small ISP. We were bought by a loal Telco and over the years have got used to having all our routers and switches running on DC current.
    One thing telco companies do well is DC power, they have alot of skill in providing multiple DC feeds from DC power systems, with battery backup and generators all in line.
    I would imagine that any big server farm would benefit from this kind of setup. Especially when you have people runnnig the lines that are as good as some of the guys in the telo world, they can really make the wiring look like a art in some places.
  • by Myself ( 57572 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:02PM (#14008514) Journal
    ...this may or may not save a step.

    However, it does provide a few significant advantages.

    Telcos use DC because it's easy to battery-back. Since all your gear is already running from the DC supply, there's no guesswork about whether your UPS will be able to handle the load. Each piece includes its own converters, so all you have to do is size the battery bank. Since most telcos aim for 8-hour runtimes on battery (long enough to discover and fix a generator problem), overkill is the order of the day.

    There's also the point that you can run several small generators, instead of one large one. In an AC world, keeping multiple generators syncrhonized is nearly impossible on a small scale, so you just run one big one. If your setup grows, you rip out the old generator and replace it with a larger one. In DC, since all your generators feed the same battery bank, you can just tack on more capacity without trashing your original investment.

    Using multiple generators provides cheaper redundancy too. In an AC setup if you wanted to be protected against a generator failure, you'd need two identical gensets, each large enough to run the whole load. With DC, say you had 5 generators but 4 could power the load. You still have no single point of failure, and you don't have to buy *double* the generating capacity.

    Oh, and if a second generator fails, say you're down to 3, you're below the break-even point, but you're still limping along, with the operating generators assisting the batteries, extending your battery runtime long enough that you can probably fix one of the failed gensets. Oh, you found a spare generator at the rental place down the street? Switch a few rectifiers onto it and watch your charge status come back into the green. You just don't have that sort of versatility with AC.

    DC is easier to noise-filter than AC. Keeping the high-frequency noise from switching converters off the AC input is something of a black art, and is hard to do effectively. You also have Power Factor (PF) issues when running large numbers of computers (or anything that uses switch-mode power supplies) from AC. Hence, your supplies have to be PF-corrected, which adds bulk and complexity, and reduces efficiency.

    A DC-DC converter suffers none of those problems, going from your 48v battery bank down to the 12, 5, and 3.3 levels in your servers. It's easy to filter the switching noise because the input is DC, a big L-C filter works quite well. There's no such thing as power factor on DC, so the converters themselves are simpler and smaller, and run cooler.

    One other huge benefit is that 48 volts is "low voltage" according to the NEC, so you can wire it yourself. You'll never have to let pole-climbers into your server room again. :)

    Another advantage is that most DC-input equipment has a telco heritage, and supports dual inputs. Everything in telco has an "a-side" and a "b-side" power supply. It's only relatively recently that high-end datacomm gear has started to support multiple AC power inputs. History and experience are on your side with DC.
  • DC power in the data center unquestionably makes sense. Higher density, less heat and if it is on UPS, a lot off efficiency gains both at the computer part and the power distribution systems. Power distribution from the UPS is generally cheaper not having to transform from battery to A/C current. It would even save on air conditioning costs through lower heat on the computer and UPS electronics/transformers. In the long term, such a data center would be much less expensive to operate.

    But the only draw

  • electrical isolation (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The argument for AC to DC conversion on each device is that individual power supplies provide isolation e.g. no direct current path from DC ground of one device to another device. This is why Ethernet is transformer coupled. Eliminates ground loops and propagation of damage during major hardware meltdowns, nearby lightning strike etc.
  • Cons of DC power (Score:4, Informative)

    by RafaelGCPP ( 922041 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:11PM (#14008623)

    1) Contacts tends to rust on the positive side.

    2) Lower voltage means bigger current for the same power. This would require thicker, more expensive cables

    3) DC-DC voltage conversion is, somewhat less efficient... Ok, I know switching mode power supplies are efficient, but this leads me to the last point:

    4) No insulation between systems. That way, systems get more prone to ground loops...
    • 1) Contacts tends to rust on the positive side.

      True, the effect is called "galvanic corrosion". That's why the entire telco network is negative with respect to ground. It's been that way since the days of Western Union. Already solved, sorry.

      2) Lower voltage means bigger current for the same power. This would require thicker, more expensive cables

      True. But low voltage (under 50vDC nominal) doesn't require licensed electricians to run it. Clearly the extra buck for thicker copper outweighs the cost of paying

  • It's not the end of the earth, but they're going to need large #0 and #)) copper cables to carry the enormous currents at the low voltage drops required. I'd suggest a ring topology.

    Yes, central DC is attractive from a number of viewpoints: easier redundancy, higher efficiency, integratable into UPS and perhaps most important these days -- removing headload from CPU bays. But you're gonna need big busbars, especially if your boards need 3.3V. I can't see using some sort of non-custom miniPSUs to do12VD

  • by hagbard5235 ( 152810 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:18PM (#14008687)
    There are definite advantages to DC power... but it can also be *hugely* annoying.

    I've worked in DC powered labs.

    There isn't really any concept of 'plug' in the DC powered world. Powering up a device usually entails reading it's current draw off the equipment, selecting the correct gauge of wire, cutting the correct length of wire, strip both ends, hook up to your DC distribution on one end and your equipment on the other, select about the right size fuse, plug it in... etc. It's a royal pain. Oh, and make sure you do it correctly, because it's not that hard to electrecute yourself...

    Nearly every engineer I've ever worked with whose been exposed to DC powered labs has begged to return to the AC powered world... it's just MUCH easier to work with.

    On the flip side though... telco racks rock! Nothing beats hex head rack screws... you can literally drive them in at a 45 degree angle with a power drill and it's OK. It makes going back to the world of crappy philips head data wrack screws that you occasionally have to drill out because the head has stripped very annoying.
    • You should look into the Anderson Powerpole plugs. They're made for DC, and can be assembled in a few ways to prevent accidental mixing of voltages. They've become a standard in amateur radio and emergency communications circles, for moving 12v around without the problems of large busbars or cigarette lighter sockets.

      The world could use a set of powerpole orientation and color standards. Hmm.
  • by jeffmeden ( 135043 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:21PM (#14008724) Homepage Journal
    Is that DC power is naturally unstable. As loads fluctuate, the conversion and distribution system can change dramatically and result in very unclean power. If you are proposing to ditch AC in the server room and run DC from the UPS hardware directly to the rack, you will need to add in a lot of hardware to guarantee that the servers get exactly the voltage they need. This hardware will probably be less costly and wasteful than the AC systems currently in use, but they will also be more proprietary and (in the short term) more expensive to buy into. This is not the magical solution many envision, but it has a good future since transistor technology is getting a lot better and hence voltage management will be easier and easier as time goes on. The opportunity to move the conversion heat away from the inside of the server allows for better heat management, since you can let a transformer/transistor power system toil away only cooling it from the air duct on the roof and save the crisp AC for the servers.
    • We seem to have moronic moderators today, as it's uncomprehensive why the above comment got modded as "Insightful".

      For Christ's sake, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about! "DC power is naturally unstable", "unclean power" WTH?

      Back to the original topic, the article is, as other mentioned already, 100% pure dribble. The major advantage of AC input power is that the power conversion (AC to DC system and from there down to 5V/3.3V/VCore/DDR/IO/etc), happens close to the loads.

      AC voltage is 110V or mor
  • by bigtrike ( 904535 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:23PM (#14008755)
    Wouldn't you still need a power supply to convert to the various voltages required by a computer, which may change over time. Most DC power setups I've seen run at 48v, which still requires conversion to 12v, 5v, and 3.3v. You can buy a 48v power supply for most servers and other equipment today. With a switched power supply, you'd need larger capacitors or a higher switching frequency in order to smooth out the lower powered DC. It's very unlikely that you would eliminate any heat loss. I would assume that telecommunications equipment uses a 48v setup due to legacy issues and that it was a better idea before switching power supplies became cheap and efficient.

    The downside with DC is that lower voltages require much thicker wires, and you're at much greater risk for fire. Circuit breakers and other things are also more complicated and expensive since DC tends to weld things together.

    An EE I know just built a data center supplying 208v (2 branches of a 3 phase iirc) to all the racks. Almost all existing power supplies can take it, and it saves a bundle in wiring costs. I'm not sure about servers, but most desktop power supplies operate at a power factor of .8 or so, meaning 20% of the billable power is effectively wasted and could be recovered for a slight increase in cost.
  • by harlows_monkeys ( 106428 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:45PM (#14008991) Homepage
    OK, electricity has always confused me, so I'm probably being stupid here, but I don't see how this saves power.

    Assume that an AC-to-DC conversion causes a loss of 10% (just to have a number).

    If we bring in AC, convert it to DC in one location, and then distribute it as DC to all the computers, we've lost 10%.

    If we bring in AC, distribute it to all the computers, and convert to DC at each computer, we lose 10%. The conversions are independent and parallel, and so the loss is not additive. (After all, if we have 10 computers, it doesn't mean we are losing 100% of the power). I can see how we might save money, as we no longer would need a complicated power supply at each computer. Also, we wouldn't have a hot power supply in each computer, and this could reduce cooling costs. But I don't see where the power savings comes from.

  • by RockyMountain ( 12635 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:46PM (#14009004) Homepage
    The slashdot story intro implies that the advantage of DC is that you
    save a conversion step. Well, maybe you do, maybe you don't, but
    counting the number of AC-to-DC and DC-to-AC conversions is very
    misleading.

    Converting 50 or 60 Hertz to DC is much more costly and less efficient
    than converting in either direction at a higher frequency. Low
    frequency rectification requires large filter capacitors, complex and
    expensive inrush current limiting, and active power-factor correction.
      By doing that front-end work in one place only, preferably from a
    3-phase source, you save power and increase reliability. You probably
    still want multiple 50/60Hz to DC rectifier stages, of course, but now
    they can be in parallel (for redundancy), rather than each one
    downstream of the other where a failure of either one will bring down
    the system.

    Just because you're distributing DC to the racks, doesn't mean you
    don't have to convert it again. It typically gets converted to AC and
    back to DC at least once, usually twice before it reaches CPU and
    memory chips. That's equally true in data centers that distribute AC
    or DC. The fact is, memory and CPU devices want very low DC voltages
    and very high currents. To make matters worse, not all parts of the
    system want exactly the same DC voltage, you almost always have to
    have multiple supply rails. You can't distribute very low voltages,
    because it would require wires as thick as your arm and they'd still
    be too resistive and inductive, so instead you distribute the DC at,
    typically, 48 volts. The subsequent conversion to low DC voltages has
    to happen via an intermediate AC, but it's a high frequency AC, so it
    can be done much more efficiently using ferrite magnetic components,
    active rectification, and often resonant mode filters. This high
    frequency AC is confined to the internals of a power supply unit, it
    never travels over wires or between boxes, thus reducing typical
    high-frequency problems such as RFI.

    I haven't mentioned battery-backup (i.e. UPSs). They make the system
    more complex, but don't change any of the fundamental concerns. Even
    on a DC distribution system, the UPS system requires it's own
    additional stages of DC->AC->DC conversion, both while charging
    (standby) and while discharging (during AC power failure). This is
    because battery charging has to have a precisely controlled current
    envelope. And batteries don't discharge at the uniform and
    well-regulatted voltage that your DC distribution wants. They need
    regulators, and switchmode regulators (typically DC->AC->DC) are the
    most efficient choice.
    • You almost seem to be arguing for power distribution to be higher frequency AC, so that the DC conversion componenents can be small, cheap and localized to the point of use. If the HF AC is well chosen for voltage and frequency then some of the intermediate conversion steps can be skipped as it will be "ready" for step down and rectification.

      50/60Hz originally was chosen because the low frequencies were easier to generate with the mechanical equipment available 100 years ago but also to avoid a lot of indu
  • by sirwired ( 27582 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @01:10PM (#14009253)
    The article on raised flooring was an interesting question, but stupid solutions.

    That article talked just like some "Intelligent-Design" moron. Just because HE can't figure out how to properly model raised-floor airflow, it must not be possible to do it at all. Wrong. There are any number of companies that will do this for you.

    The solution to raised floor airflow is proper modeling of the equipment, vent tiles, and blowers, and relatively unobstructed floor plenum. The solution is NOT air-cooled equipment on bare floor and overhead cable runs. If cooling is still a problem, then use liquid-cooled racks and equipment. (This is where things seem to be going right now.) While overhead cable runs may work fine for some dinky test lab, "real" equipment requires power cables of a size that would quickly fill most overhead runs.

    This article proposing DC power is equally stupid.

    An enterprise storage box, fully configured that I looked at requires 13,800 kVA of 208V three-phase power (100A inrush current). My mind can barely fathom the completely unbendable copper "wire" that supplying that much juice at 40-ish volts would require.

    Telco's switches have a far lower power density than modern servers, and the DC power was made to correct for different problems.

    If this guy's ideal data center is overhead cable runs, ceiling blowers, bare floor, and DC power, I'd run away fast.

    SirWired
  • by ruiner5000 ( 241452 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @01:13PM (#14009289) Homepage
    Hey Johnson, we are running out of power in our datacenter!

    Ok, I'll order more HP Xeon servers. They use more power, cost more, perform worse, and have a limited upgrade path. But Intel sends me cool swag so I use them.

    Johnson, your fired! We are going Opteron, and raising our capacity 30%!
  • by CorporalKlinger ( 871715 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @01:53PM (#14009706)
    I think this article might be using the term "engineer" a bit too loosely. I doubt any company would hire an engineer - an actual person with a Professional Engineer's License - to work on these systems. A more appropriate term might be "technician," which usually refers to someone who is trained to repair and work with a single type of technology. Engineers, on the other hand, are usually trained to work with a large variety of technologies and usually work on either (A) Research and development, (B) Manufacturing, or (C) Failure analysis and redesign.

    I guess using the term "engineer" sounds better though since it tends to scare the corporate fat-cats away from a technology because of the implied additional cost from hiring an engineer as compared to a technician.
  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @02:14PM (#14009882) Homepage
    That's a weak article.

    There are several approaches to power distribution. One is "telco type" -48VDC distribution. [telephonyonline.com] This is most appropriate when the configuration doesn't change much. Wiring usually involves big cables and screw lugs. Plugs aren't standardized. More importantly, there's no set of simple rules, like the UL/NEMA/NEC standards that govern plugs, outlets, wiring, and circuit breakers, that make 120V power distribution safe without having to measure everything.

    In the 120VAC world, everything has been designed so that end users don't have to worry much about overloading the wiring. If they do, a circuit breaker will trip. An ordinary power plug, a "5-15P", can handle 15A, so if you have an outlet strip, there is a breaker to protect the plug and cord from overload, should the total load on the power strip exceed 15A. A 20A power strip must have a "L5-20P" plug, the big twist-lock type. As soon as you get away from 120VAC, you lose that designed-in idiot-proofing. (Europe is still struggling in this area, with too many different connectors [pandora.be], so you don't get the same level of idiot-proofing in the 220VAC part of the world.) So once you leave 120VAC, you're going to need power engineering skills. (Clamp-around ammeters are very useful, and yes, you can get them for DC.)

    There's also 400Hz AC distribution, which allows for smaller transformers and filter caps in power supplies. 400Hz rackmount servers are available. [rave.net] Aircraft, military, and some mainframe systems use 400Hz. It's not a big win in this era of switching power supplies.

    There's 3-phase power distribution. Here's a 3-phase outlet strip. [servertech.com] More to the point, there's an efficiency gain in running a UPS from 3-phase power, and big UPSs are usually 3-phase, at least on the input side. Arguably, power should be 3-phase down to the point where it's rectified to DC, because 3-phase rectifiers need far less filtering, but nobody does this for small loads.

    American Power Conversion [apc.com] has been pushing the idea of integrating power conversion, cable management, and cooling into standard racks. Classically, those are the big problems in big computer systems. Seymour Cray used to say that the big problems were "the thickness of the (wiring) mat" and "getting rid of the heat". By that standard, APC is now as much of a computer manufacturer as, say, Dell; neither makes motherboards or ICs, they just package gear from others. Which is a wierd thought.

    All of this power is going to be converted again, at least once, and probably twice, before it hits the semiconductors. That's the job of point-of-load DC to DC converters, [ti.com] usually ICs on the board that do the final conversion. Typically, when you get to the computer, there's a conversion from the line voltage (120-240VAC, 48VDC, etc) to internal distribution voltages of 5-12VDC, then another conversion and regulation just before each device, usually downward to something like 3.3VDC. This keeps transient load changes from one device from affecting others. There may be on-chip regulation, too. The losses at those last stages of conversion are usually the biggest ones in the whole chain.

    • Arguably, power should be 3-phase down to the point where it's rectified to DC, because 3-phase rectifiers need far less filtering, but nobody does this for small loads.

      Especially if you can swing a 12-pulse rectifier - which gives much smoother DC and less harmonics on the AC side. This is becoming less of an issue with PFC SMPS's.

      Typically, when you get to the computer, there's a conversion from the line voltage (120-240VAC, 48VDC, etc) to internal distribution voltages of 5-12VDC, then another convers

  • by LFransen ( 930415 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @04:34PM (#14011205)
    Hi everyone,
    I am a datcenter manager that has had the opportunity to not only run but also build a datacenter from pretty much scratch. In my experience I have found that both DC and AC powered equipment both have their places in the environment. Neither system is perfect so by running hybrid you can get the most flexibility.

    We recently moved our datacenter form a 10K sq ft facility down to a 1700 ft facility by doing a technology refresh and changing many of our key infrastructure methods. In the new facility I currently have 315 HP blade servers plus another 10-15 traditional rack type servers running. I have the capacity to add up to another 144 blades (assuming they are 1U) before I run out of floor and HVAC capacity. The power delivery method is hybrid. I run DC for the blades which are fed by Emerson Energy's Candeo XL rectifier stacks (originally designed for telco) and AC for everything else. To eliminate a lot of the under floor clutter I use a trough system instead of conduit for the various AC circuits. HVAC is provided by 4 Liebert 22TON units which keep my room at a comfy under floor temp of 66 degrees.

    Adequate airflow is critical so we spent a lot of time planning tile placement. The key for proper cooling in this scenario was a high volume of airflow pushing the cooling to about 5.5ft up from the raised floor. This way my cooling isn't being sucked up by just the bottom half of the rack. Low voltage cabling is overhead.

    We chose to power the blades DC for two reasons. First was the limited space I had for installing breaker boxes on the walls. The number of AC circuits I had was limited so I pulled fat feeds directly to the Candeo systems. A full rack of HP p-class blades would require 4 x 3phase 208 circuits per rack. My initial installation of blades would have consumed 144 of my 168 circuits leaving next to nothing to power my SAN/Network/Tape Library/etc equipment. The other reason was power supply efficiency. In the conversion of power from AC to DC the efficiency of the power supply must be taken into consideration. It's not just the number of conversions you do but the loss at each. Typical power supplies in servers run about 80% efficient while my Candeo as they are setup gets about 90%. For me this ultimately meant less heat and more available cooling, therefore I could bring in more servers under the existing HVAC.

    I prefer a best of class mentality. IMHO there is no best universal solution. For those of you that use traditional rack mounts servers like Dell you can purchase these units with a DC option. I am not sure if HP offers a similar option but they might.

    Len

    p.s. Someone also made the comment about DC not generating noise in network cabling while AC does. This is not a totally true statement. Anytime you run a current through a conductor you will generate a magnetic field. Put this in parallel to another conductor and you will further induce a mag field (this is why any power runs that have to intersect low-voltage cabling should only intersect at 90 degree angles to avoid inductance). The big difference is the way DC cabling runs. In most DC circuits the feed and return lines run together so the proximity of the out of phase magnetic fields will cancel each other out. Don't believe me? I had this problem when we intially wired these Candeo systems up. The small feeds to the racks and the big mains that connected to the common buss bar were about a foot apart. Because the fields weren't cancelling, we were getting enough noise on the lines that it looked like there was AC leaking through the circuits (6volts p-p in some cases). By simply wire tieing the lines together, the proximity cancelled the fields out and everything was peachy.

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...