Post-Copenhagen, does green IT matter?
It's difficult to talk about “green IT” without coming across as a techno-apologist. However much suppliers lay claim to having the most tree-huggingly planet friendly technologies available, the indisputable, unavoidable, insurmountable truth is that IT is largely about wiring up and plugging in sometimes large pieces of …
All non essential boxes should auto shutdown at an agreed time with an escape from shutdown prompt. I realise this does slightly increase the chance of hardware failure but that keeps us in work so it's a win win scenario :)
Luddites whining about not finding the Attach button on their email clients.
Some stuff has to be on 24/7. A quick check with a power meter showed a wide range of consumptions across our dozen PCs. Switched the 24/7 to the lowest and remembering to turn the rest off more than halved our consumption. No spend*, same service, no brainer for many other similar organisations.
I lied £14 for the power meter. Beats windmills, solar panels et al as a green investment - if only to spot that greedy IKEA transformer that sucks power even when the lights are off.
I like the idea of switching boxes based on power consumption, good work fella.
So very true. The problem I encounter with any sort of "agile IT," "green IT," or anything even remotely innovative is the reactionary mindset of the copper-counters. There is, in their mind, absolutely no reason to spend anything...EVER...until a problem has arisen needing solving. Regardless of any business case you put forward, regardless of the potential or calculated savings, if what they have right now works, and any changes would cost them even a bent copper...there is no way we will ever be allowed to implement it.
It is for putting out fires. Not for preventing them. So sayeth the copper-counters.
Sign up, sign up for Blocks and Files, The Reg's weekly storage newsletter
