main
Report a problem

InfoWorld: Linux beats Windows 2008 power-saving measures

Daniel Fleshbourne   on 10 June 2008 - 08:55 · 13 comments & 8494 views

Advertisement (Why?)
Ensuring your servers stamp as small a carbon footprint as possible on the earth and in your datacenter can encompass everything from making sure they are shipped in recyclable packaging to hiring an analyst who can predict the total lifecycle environmental impact.

For this test, we examined power consumption as a way to judge whether Windows Server 2008 or Linux is, in fact, the "greener" operating system. As the price of power hits record heights, power reduction mechanisms shipping within an operating system should play a key role in you energy conservation plan. Our tests point to Linux as the winner of the green flag by margins that topped out at 12 percent. But we must note that our results are full of stipulations imposed by our test bed, and as the more truthful car advertisements might warn -- your wattage may vary.

View: The full story @ InfoWorld

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 13 additional comments
(1 reply) #1 stevehoot on 10 Jun 2008 - 11:16
Hmm, I'm wary about this report. If you read the thing in full it's actually neck and neck depending on the workload. Additionally, the comparision under load was Exchange 2007 vs. Sendmail. Not picking holes, but AFAIK I thought Sendmail was a pretty basic application in comparision to Exchange in regards to feature set. (Could be wrong).

For example, won't Exchange be communicating with a DC for it's configuration data? Plus, nearly everything in Exchange is presented via IIS - so it's then a mail server and a web server.

Not saying that this is the reason, but I'd be interested if there was a difference in the results if the Windows box was running Sendmail instead.


"When running in the high-performance mode in the active test, ... Windows Server 2008 had the best power consumption rating on the HP DL-160G5 server, spending on average about 6.5 watts less than Linux. "

"The HP DL-160 didn't show dramatic behavior changes in settings in the quiescent tests, and made Windows 2008 Server a winner in the active, performance-modes test where it seemed to give its best performance."

"...when Windows Server 2008 was running in power-savings mode on the Dell server, where it drew on average 3 percent less power [than Linux]."


IMHO I don't think this test really proves anything. In more of the scenarios the RHEL server did slightly better than Windows Server 2008 and SLES - yet in other (abeit less) scenarios the Windows box did better. As it always has been - the conclusion is that it depends on what you want the box to do, the load the box will be under and what hardware you are using.

So the same as before - chose the right hardware, OS and apps depending on the job..... <sigh>
#1.1 vetmarkjensen on 10 Jun 2008 - 12:34
Agreed. This series of testing may have shown an overall slight advantage one way, but individual specific settings may yield different results.
(1 reply) #2 sphbecker on 10 Jun 2008 - 12:32
Yeah, but which one has a cooler looking mascot? Dancing robot vs silly cartoon penguin? I know which one I want in my data center :-)
#2.1 Magallanes on 10 Jun 2008 - 12:48
(sphbecker said @ #2)
Yeah, but which one has a cooler looking mascot? Dancing robot vs silly cartoon penguin? I know which one I want in my data center :-)


a red deamon?.

;-)
(3 replies) #3 GreyWolfSC on 10 Jun 2008 - 14:26
I don't get it. Windows 2008 is a server. Aren't servers always running? How does a Linux server save more power than an XServe, WS2008, Sparc, or any other server if they're meant to be always on and working?
#3.1 XerXis on 10 Jun 2008 - 15:53
because windows apparently consumes more cpu cycles or reads/writes to the hdd/memory more, thus drawing more power
#3.2 GreyWolfSC on 10 Jun 2008 - 16:01
(XerXis said @ #3.1)
because windows apparently consumes more cpu cycles or reads/writes to the hdd/memory more, thus drawing more power


Ah... I'm used to the servers I've maintained running 24/7 so the CPU/HDD would be constantly running anyway.
#3.3 sphbecker on 11 Jun 2008 - 12:56
No server CPU or HDD would run constantly 24/7 unless it was doing nothing but batch processing and always had enough work to keep it busy. Powered on all the time yes, but not always working as hard as possible. What you apparently don't realize is that a CPU (and to a lesser extent a hard drive) uses less power idle then when fully loaded. This study isn't at all talking about which system has better timers for spinning down drives for putting the processors into sleep mode, you are right, servers don't do that.
#4 portauthority on 10 Jun 2008 - 16:45
So how green is server 2003?
(2 replies) #5 johnathonm on 10 Jun 2008 - 17:09
HA...that's because Linux doesn't have drivers to use most of the hardware or the drivers do not use the hardware effectively!
#5.1 PureLegend on 10 Jun 2008 - 17:34
Couldn't possibly be because Linux might be better at power management. Nope.
#5.2 HalcyonX12 on 11 Jun 2008 - 03:44
Vista isn't really king in the driver department...
#6 Evolution on 11 Jun 2008 - 00:35
It's because the investigation was done poorly....

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)