Talk:Green computing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Early discussions[edit]

I have been reading lately that ICs are no longer as sensitive to temperature variations and that the comment:

"Additionally, it is somewhat less stress on integrated circuits (especially the CPU) to be always warm, rather than fluctuating between cold and warm, because temperature changes are generally more damaging than being at a reasonably warm temperature all the time.

is no longer recommended. --220.233.33.170 23:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not significant IRL. Tabby 04:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the foreseeable future, there is likely to be some tradeoff in general between the stress of elevated operating temperatures, and the stress of temperature change -- for all electronics in general.-69.87.202.60 12:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laptops vs Desktops[edit]

This article needs a lot of work!

It needs a section on energy/electricity. Give the basic facts: A traditional desktop consumes about 100W. A traditional CRT monitor another 100W. This is esp important on computers that are on 24/7: 100W equals about $100/yr in electricity! So, the first step in saving energy is, turn off the monitor when you are not using the computer!

Another very important basic fact is that typical current laptop computers are much more energy efficient than desktop computers. A laptop might only use about 50W, and that includes the display!

There is a whole wave of new low-power computers this article should discuss and link to. VIA cpu chips are low power. There are low-power mainboards, ITX and smaller. Carputers. And new low-power laptops, particularly the OLPC XO. -69.87.202.60 12:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greenness of Laptop vs Desktop is an interesting question - I have seen several places touting laptops for being greener. But they typically mention superficial points only (e.g. energy use). Analysis should cover the whole life cycle environmental impact.
  • Laptops are typically less repairable, less upgradeable and less durable than desktops - shorter lifetime means more impact in manufacture/recycling.
  • Laptop cases are typically made of less-recyclable materials (plastic).
  • With desktops you can keep the same monitor, keyboard, etc.
  • You can design desktops with many of the power saving features of a laptop.
Zodon (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Total system power consumption[edit]

This article has very good data on typical total power consumption of modern computer system subsystems under varying conditions:

  • Saving Power on idle PCs Idle represents 69 to 97% of total annual energy use, even if power management is enabled. Recommendations for Tier I ENERGY STAR Computer Specification, Natural Resources Defense Council. David Mathog and Caltech 2005, 2006, 2007

-69.87.199.53 23:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

will become 95 percent of all federal agency purchases[edit]

"HP Green PC EPEAT Gold
HP rp5700 PC achieves gold status for the Electronic Products Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT). EPEAT-registered electronic products will become 95 percent of all federal agency purchases... The Electronic Products Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) is used to rank computer desktops, laptops and monitors based on their environmental attributes. The three-tiered EPEAT rating system includes 23 required criteria and 28 optional criteria, such as the reduction or elimination of environmentally sensitive materials and energy conservation... HP lab tests have found that the rp5700 desktop PC, in its maximum energy-efficient configuration and paired with an HP flat panel monitor, may help customers save as much as 80 percent in power consumption over previous generation systems using CRT monitors.
Posted by Green Tech June 2007"[1] -69.87.200.80 00:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions[edit]

A few questions the article left me with:

  • "Support for S3 Standby and G2 Soft-off ACPI states have been difficult to achieve or undesirable for free operating systems" — Why?
  • Why isn't there any mention of the notorious lack of efficiency within PC power manufacturers and Energy Star's 80 Plus initiative?
  • Why does the section on "Alternatives to low-power states" mention the reduction of noise? What's noise got to do with lowering the power consumption and recyclability of parts, etc.?
  • Security risks and how to avoid them are in my opinion irrelevant to the section. I don't see how it's even remotely pertinent to the discussion. Samuel Grant 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The noise bit I would imagine is because Noise Pollution is considered a type of pollution - but in this case I have to agree it's pretty irrelevant, considering the negligable amount of noise most computers make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.116.121 (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just rewrote the "Alternatives" section. I think that it was originally written from a free-software perspective; rather than discuss the aspects of ACPI that are pertinent to green computing, it simply dismisses them as "difficult" or "undesirable". I hope the new section is clearer on this subject. I also added info on power supplies and the 80 Plus initiative, and I took out the fluff on noise reduction. — EagleOne\Talk 18:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your improvements! Samuel Grant 21:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello All,

I have posted a detailed study of computer monitor energy consumption on my blog at http://savingenergy.wordpress.com/2006/11/21/saving-energy-one-monitor-at-a-time/

This link has been referenced by a lot of other blogs etc. and appears in top google searches.

I would like to know if 1. I can add link to that study on green computing page? 2. If answer to Question 1 is no, then can the blog post as an article here? I care about spreading the information more than I care about hits on my blog. Thanks, Kgskgs (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it's self-published original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you want to include the material in Wikipedia, have it published by a reliable third-party source, and then you may include it here with proper citation. -- Schapel (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hibernate[edit]

The Hibernate article links here, but this article doesn't say anything about hibernation.

When I came to this article I wanted to know if hibernation was more or less energy efficient than shutting down completely, anyone know? Is hibernation a complete shut down only with the current state saved? (th reason I ask is that on my desktop comp, when I press hibernate, the num lock light stays on and I can't work out why). I found both articles didn't really answer the questions I had about hibernation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.208.99 (talk)

According to this source, "Hibernate saves an image of your desktop with all open files and documents, and then it powers down your computer." Feel free to include this information in the article and cite this source. -- Schapel 14:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Suggestion[edit]

This page could use a picture at the lead. I would suggest something like a circular recycling symbol that is labeled to describe Green IT. Image:Recycle001.svg might be a good starting place. Mrshaba 03:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Links and Blogs[edit]

It is policy not to include references to blogs in Wikipedia entries; my preference would be to get rid of all of them but the two mentioned do have paid staff and editors. The commercial links don't have any place; news is ok but its better to work them into the article since there is so much.MyTigers (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Energy efficient computing[edit]

The article does not seem to clearly differentiate energy efficient systems from low power systems. I have noticed similar confusion in discussions of ecology and computing elsewher

e.g. people proposing folding@home (a compute intensive job) on something like a Via C3 or Intel D201GLY2 (slow, low power computers), when a higher efficiency computer (e.g. Mac Mini Core2Duo) would do a lot more work for the energy input.

I think it would be worth pointing out that there is more to high efficiency than low power. (Of course, if a system doesn't have much to do and is high efficiency, then it will be low power.)

The Green500 might be a useful reference for this. 

http://www.green500.org/ The Green500 ranks the fastest (Top500) supercomputers by energy efficiency


Zodon (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental technology template

I'd like to replace the Environmental technology template with one that matches the standard navbox style, i.e. horizontal instead of vertical, collapsing and typically placed at the bottom of article pages. I've done a mock up of what this would look like at {{User:Jwanders/ET}}. Figured this was a big enough change that I should post before going ahead with it. Please discuss here--jwandersTalk 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Cleanup needed[edit]

Much of the info is this article is out of date, and seems to be a large advert for particular vendors. The text needs to be solidified and concentrate on the widely supported initiatives. some items that require immediate attention:

CA electronic waste recycling act - there are currently 26 states that have some type of program, CA doesnt need to be singled out.

IBM big green - every vendor has a program e.g. sun ecoResponsibility http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/environment/products/intro.jsp Dell http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/corp/environment/en/energy?c=us&l=en&s=gen&dgc=AF&cid=29370&lid=661332 Google http://gigaom.com/2007/06/12/google-backs-green-computing-too/. IBM doesnt need to be singled out.

Power generation- should be removed, too broad and not applicable. Video Cards - way down the list in any green computing program, item is general is greenwashy. Display - general greenwash, needs to be removed or beefed up. See Also - needs to be worked into each section. Blogs - probably should be killed, although the two listed have editors.


Significant Review Required[edit]

There is significant dispute in the industry and between users what comprises "green computing" and what not. This page seems to reflect this conflict and presents a somewhat immature look at the topic. In simple terms computing is not "green" and with current technology can not be, so the term itself is somewhat misleading. The point here is that the manufacture, use and disposal of IT equipment has a very real and significant impact on the earth's resources and the environment. A "green" computer would have neither of these.
It would seem to be a better approach to include the manufacture, use and disposal of computing equipment under the "eco-efficiency" page, or at least as a sub-component of this. (M Banks) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.35.231.1 (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the page needs significant cleanup, and should focus on green computing principles which are well established and supported by large initiatives and standards. These standards and such have been formalized and agreed to by essentially every large vendor. In these cases, there is no dispute about what needs to happen, the impacts, etc.

The paragraph above suggests the term 'green' is used primarily as a noun, when in fact it is used primarily as a verb. Green computing is a constantly moving process, and all players recognize it as such; meaningful comparisons are made on how far a component/company/ machine has made it to the goal which is summarized above, not on reaching the goal itself. In fact, by definiton, manufacturing any technology with zero impact is not possible. Appropriate use is the key here.MyTigers (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the page can use continued improvement, however just deleting large sections is not clearly improvement. If you think it needs more material on other areas - fine, how about adding material on the other areas. If you think the coverage of some aspects here could be condensed - how about making edits or proposals of ways to condense the material. Just deleting big chunks, unless they are clearly totally off topic or incomprehensible is not helpful. At least bring specific items up for discussion/consensus with explanation of what you think the problem is and why think removal would be beneficial, rather than repeatedly making big cuts.
If there are multiple views of what green computing is, fine - article should cover all of the significant verifiable ones, rather than focusing exclusively on one view/aspect. Not clear that it should focus just on things supported by large initiatives and standards. There are aspects that individuals can do, or which have yet to be standardized. Zodon (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to support length for length's sake. These sections have remained for several months uncited, and the quality of the text is poor. Take low performance computing - it is one sentence after another of undocumented speculation, and is POV recommending specific manufacturers; storage is similar. More efficient components is just a pointer to another page. There are a few good ideas here but they need to be expressed properly with citations or removed - currently these sections are off topic and incomprehensible. Let's leave it for a few days to add cites, then remove the junk.MyTigers (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about providing some examples of how you think things could be rephrased to improve. It seems pretty arbitrary which bits are being chopped. How are they incomprehensible, or off topic? They talk about energy efficiency, and minimizing use of materials and reuse of already manufactured devices - all aspects of green computing.
I suggest removing (a) all vendor references and (b) all uncited statements; low performance computing, storage, etc. These sections speculate about energy efficiency, materials, reuse, etc. but provide no documentation. Note that the EPEAT standard completely covers these items on a machine by machine basis, so picking out a few name brand components does not add to the article.MyTigers (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2]

What do you consider speculative? That an AMD Geode LX 800, e.g. is lower performance than say a Core2Duo? That a box a little larger than an optical drive is smaller than a standard desktop case? Without examples of what you find incomprehensible about the items, it is hard to know what you would consider to be improvements. Zodon (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
both those chips probably require almost the same amount of raw materials to produce (a large amount) so no gains there. you might says one is 'not as fast' or 'lower wattage' but it is going to be embedded in a system which can be evaluated. The correlation between physical size and greenness is dubious - it probably is an inverse relationship - and again completely covered in the EPEAT standard.MyTigers (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bits needing citation[edit]

These items were deleted for not having citations, but seem worthwhile and are verifiable so waiting here until get citations.

Storage[edit]

Smaller form factor (e.g. 2.5 inch) hard disk drives often consume less power than physically larger drives.[citation needed]

Citations found [1][2] and item restored. Zodon (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flash based solid state drives generally allow far fewer write cycles than hard drives.[citation needed] Smaller storage capacity per dollar may further limit their usable lifetime.[citation needed] Shorter lifetimes may make SSDs less energy and material efficient in some applications.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_computing&curid=1661475&diff=227995141&oldid=227995025


Other low power alternative devices http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_computing&diff=prev&oldid=219605599

Citation for flash drives fewer writes than hard drives: Lucas Mearian (August 27, 2008). "Solid-state disk lackluster for laptops, PCs". Retrieved 2008-09-12.

Zodon (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mike Chin (8 March 2004). "IS the Silent PC Future 2.5-inches wide?". Retrieved 2 August 2008.
  2. ^ Mike Chin (2002-09-18). "Recommended Hard Drives". Retrieved 2 August 2008.

Green IT VS green computing[edit]

the German wikipedia has an de:Green IT article but the english dependant is 'green computing'. When I look at google trends it clearly shows that Green IT was there long before the green computing. When you limit the view to Us only you can't even see the 'green computing' curve. So my question is: is there a reasons why the article is not named Green IT? 210.80.142.30 (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The google trends cited is a bit misleading, the word "it" is much more common than the word computing. (The listing above is just for any search containing the words "green" and "it".) Now if you search for green information technology, you get quite a different view. Or, "green it" and "green computing."
Information technology often has connotations of business/commercial applications/large installations, whereas computing can include things like personal computing. (There are far fewer English wikipedia accesses to Green IT than to Green computing, of course to what extent that is because of links versus search terms - hard to say.) Of course Green IT is a redirect to this article, so people can find it either way. Zodon (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reflection I don't think it would be good to change the page to "Green IT"
  • Fully spelled out words are preferred in article names, but Green information technology scores even lower than green computing on google searches, etc.
  • IT has a number of possible expansions and information technology is not as familiar jargon to the general populace as computing. (e.g. my granny, who never used a computer at least would recognize the term computer, IT or information technology - she wouldn't have had a clue.) The term green computing stands by itself for a wider spectrum of the population better than Green IT does. Zodon (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green Electronics and Green Computing[edit]

I suggest fully create the article green electronics, instead of a redirect to green computing. Green electronics is more than green computing (i.e. can include mobile phones and devices other than computers).--Mac (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of unique content do you have to put in it? (i.e. what differentiates it from green computing, the two articles about electronics waste/recycling, environmental impact of individual device types, etc.)?
I think coverage of the issues of batteries (especially non-replaceable, etc.) would be good. Don't know to what extent that is already covered in consumer electronics or batteries topics. (Relates to green computing too - avoiding cordless battery powered mice, keyboards, etc., ...).
More coverage of, or linkage to, environmentally less damaging practices in electronics manufacture might also be good. (Again, this could be improved here too.) Zodon (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also - energy consumption by computers[edit]

This Energy use in the United States#Energy consumption of computers in the USA seems an appropriate see also item for the green computing article, it covers energy use by computers. It has been removed with no explanation, or very cryptic messages. Why? Zodon (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mills study is not accurate, being conducted by a biased party with no credentials. It was completely and soundly refuted immediately by the lbl study - why this Mills 'study' is even mentioned is frankly inexplicable. See http://enduse.lbl.gov/projects/InfoTech.html. More broadly, the point of adding this infomration to the page must be explored... the US uses 1.5% of its electricity for computers... so, what? Why focus on the US, what is the relevance of this number, etc. MyTigers (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy is not the metric used on Wikipedia, verifiability is. The item seems to cover various views on the topic. Questions of quality/improvement/weight of the item would be more appropriate there.
The question here is whether to have a see also link to the information.
One of the environmental impacts of computers is the energy they use while in operation, so items that cover that are potentially relevant to "Green" computing. If there is something on worldwide energy use by computers, that would also be relevant.
Computers use a significant amount of energy, documenting how much, the trends in that usage, and putting it in context (e.g. compared to total energy usage) would seem to be reasonable information to include in an encyclopedia. The Green computing page is one place where such analysis might reasonably be looked for. So even if it isn't on this page, it is reasonable to link to such information from here.
This isn't "focusing" on the US, if similar information is available on other countries, then it would make sense to link that also. The tree will never grow if one keeps cutting off all the chutes because they aren't fully formed limbs. Zodon (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a proclivity to inject biased and inaccurate information into this article under the guise of 'different views' e.g. the Greenpeace electronics campaign, the Mills study, etc. Again, green computing has moved well beyond these types of articles - there are industry-wide groups, there are standards, there are metrics. 'Different views' just doesn't apply, the process has been formalized.
I moved the energy use link to the top and removed the US reference.MyTigers (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where there are multiple significant views on a topic that have been published in reliable sources, the policy says to present them WP:NPOV. There is nothing in the policy about NPOV not applying in certain cases, e.g. where there are standards.
Just because there are multiple views on something is not a reason to suppress the thing, it is a reason to document the different significant views on it. Just as the standards, metrics and views of the industry-wide groups should have their shortcomings documented. To remove everything that isn't part of the industry standard would definitely be POV. But again - the quality issues of the target material relate to improving the target material, not to whether it is appropriate for a wikilink.
Additional on why the US is a more than average interesting country for such information. The US is one of the more populous nations (3rd most populous in 2006). It was the largest energy consumer (in 2005), with about 1/4 of the world's energy use. So understanding US energy use is not insignificant in understanding world energy use, and estimates that 3% of US electrical use (circa 2000) was for computers is noteworthy.
I would assume that the Mills study is noted if for no other reason than that it seems to have sparked interest/action in the area. Even if it is inaccurate, it appears to be of historical significance. Zodon (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the way it is right now.MyTigers (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:TCO99 logo.png[edit]

The image Image:TCO99 logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storage - external hard drive[edit]

Moved recent addition to the storage:

"[[Image:FabrikREDrive.jpg|thumb|An external hard drive made with recyclable aluminum and bamboo <ref>[http://www.springlightcfl.com/consumer/energy_savings_calculator.aspx Energy Savings Calculator] and [http://www.simpletech.com/content/eco-friendly-redrive Fabrik website]</ref>]]

Energy star certified power adapters for storage devices reduce power consumption 30 percent on averageEnergy Star Website Low-power hard-drives that reduce fan usage, automatically shut-down during inactivity and use other low-power features can reduce power consumption 90 percent.<ref>Energy Savings Calculator and Fabrik website</ref>"

here for discussion.

The main problems with this are lack of WP:RS, and apparent WP:OR.

The image is of a drive that is marketed as "green," but no WP:RS are provided to establish that. (Manufacturers claims are just marketing, need third party analysis.) The other claims about low-power hard drives again appear to be based on marketing, lack sources and lack generality. (Only apply to one device, not clear what comparing to, ...)

It is debatable how "green" an external drive is (a larger case housing the computer, drives, etc. may be more efficient than separate cases/power supplies/... Likewise the energy star information lacks context (putting it here seems to imply that an external drive may be green, WP:OR).

Steel is also recyclable (and takes less energy to produce, ...; What is non-recyclable aluminum?)

The energy savings calculator link used in the sources has no apparent relation to any of this. Zodon (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose removing Deployment section[edit]

The way it is currently written, it is incomplete and covers only one specific platform with version specific information. The reference to this is an advertisement of a vendor product. This section does not add value to the article, and should be removed.

GreenITguy (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am a new user, I would prefer if someone who has edited this page makes the change. GreenITguy (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced/badly referenced/irrelevant edits to "virtualization" section[edit]

IP editor 70.79.65.227 (talk, block log, checkuser case) added this text to the "virtualization" section:

In addition, AMD has also invested in Shanghai FailOver Virtualization as an offer due to insufficient Distributing environment technologies as stated by IBM for Network / Storage Virtualization. This in turn reduces the server downtime and operational cost, keeping servers in shape, than polluting the environment as each minute when the servers in unable to service.[1]

First, this is a point example specific to one demo of one capability of one product from one company and as such is too specific for this section... probably for anywhere on Wikipedia. It's like having a general article about electric light bulbs and saying "In addition, GE has introduced a 60 watt equivalent CFL bulb" when no other references have been made to CFL or to other companies' products; it is too much like advertising ("hey, look what this one company is doing").

Second, "Shanghai" is simply a codename for the next series of processors from AMD, and both "failover" and "virtualization" are common terms - the text added by the IP implies there is a specific product or technology called "Shanghai Failover Virtualization", but that is not the case; failover is merely a mechanism aided by (but not requiring) virtualization. Third, failover mechanisms have very little to do with green computing - indeed, failover requires that you have redundant hardware on at least warm standby! Fourth, wording: "as an offer" makes no sense - offer to whom? "due to insufficient distributing environment technologies" makes no sense either, nor does "keeping servers in shape" (hm, don't they have server gyms for that?), etc.

Finally none of this has anything to do with IBM or with the reference given: The article does not mention AMD, nor "Shanghai", nor "failover", and only minimally mentions virtualization; it is about optimizing power consumptions in storage farms.

Frankly, how anyone got from "AMD Shanghai failover virtualization" to this article, which is merely an interview with someone from IBM that really says nothing other than "we're aware of the power consumption problems in storage farms, and we're working on it", is a complete mystery to me.

The referenced article could, on the other hand, support something in the "storage" section under "power management". I'll add that now. Jeh (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC) (and now that's done. Jeh (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I also didn't follow the addition quoted above, your addition to the storage section was a lot clearer. Zodon (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The technology itself have nothing got to do with advertising, since AMD are one of the very few companies that provide fault tolerance virtualization technologies. The sentence I give is a short reference to a particular study of computing. It is equivalent to introducing "implementations" on Java technologies, while giving an example. However, I only place the AMD FailOver virtualization, because this fault tolerance is constantly being discussed in TechTarget white papers, webcast and newsletters, however, there never wasn't a good document that does a well introduction to the topics, most of them are only case study. Though IBM does have some documents, but they are neutral, and they do insert some theory that is not agreed by association, foundations, workgroups, task force, NPO...etc of IT.

From what you just said its quite obviously you don't understand Green Computing at all. Green Computing is not just hardware specific, they are also related to integrating MIS solutions with IT integration technologies. ROI, Server Downtime, Data Migration, Datacenter consolidation are all frequently discuss topics.

And its quite obvious, Jeh you didn't even read the article. 

Back in the days of mainframe we had a lot of tools and process to manage 
storage to as high a capacity point as could be balanced with performance 
requirements. People got medals for reaching high utilization with high 
performance on mainframes 20 years ago, but those practices didn't get adopted 
in distributed environments. Now, even if I can still afford the [capital 
expense] of hardware, I can't afford the power -- there's a significant 
value-add for doing a better management job.

The sentence already shows that Green computing has a direct relationship to MIS. And so what Shanghai is a codename, the fact is AMD named it that name, what are trying to say, that you are bias against AMD technologies. If you got a problem with the naming go to talk to AMD about it, not me idiot. --70.79.65.227 (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly did read the article - how do you think I knew it did not mention AMD, and that it barely mentioned virtualization?
No, I'm not biased against AMD. I am biased against putting advertising-like references into Wikipedia articles. Particularly when they're completely irrelevant to the topic.
Your response here is completely off point. The sentence you quoted here from the IBM article does show relevance to green computing - but that point was never in question.
What was in question was a) whether AMD's failover technology or demonstration has anything to do with green computing (it doesn't; it has to do with "nonstop" services, something that requires "warm standby" spare hardware capacity and therefore is anything but green), b) whether the IBM article you ref'd had anything to do with AMD's failover technology (it doesn't; the article is about reducing power consumption in storage farms, never mentions AMD, and never mentions failover), and c) whether the IBM article you ref'd had anything to do with virtualization at all (it doesn't). Yet you used the IBM article about storage power consumption as a reference to a statement about AMD's failover technology, in a section of this article pertaining to virtualization.
To repeat in possibly clearer form:
  • The article here is about "green computing". The section into which you put this text and the ref to the IBM article is titled "virtualization". It is about virtualization as it applies to green computing.
  • The AMD failover tech you referenced has nothing to do with green computing at all. Just because some failover tech exploits virtualization, and virtualization can be used for power saving, doesn't mean failover is related to power saving.
  • Your rationale for mentionng the AMD failover tech here? "this fault tolerance is constantly being discussed in TechTarget white papers, webcast and newsletters". So are lots of other things that have nothing to do with green computing. Should this article mention all of them too?
  • The AMD failover tech is not related to anything discussed in the IBM article, but you provided that article as a reference for your mention of the AMD failover tech.
  • The IBM article you referenced has nothing to do with virtualization, yet you ref'd it in the article section entitled "virtualization."
In short, nothing about this "contribution" of yours makes any sense whatsoever.
And your "defense" here merely compounds your illogic. You are "refuting" points that were never in question. You have completely failed to either justify your position or refute any points made against you. And in the process of that failure you have shown utterly no capacity for either following or constructing a logical argument.
Oh, but I'm the one who "doesn't understand green computing." Right.
The IBM article does have to do with green computing specifically in the area of mass storage. Accordingly, I wrote a correct precís of what the IBM article said, referenced it, and put it in the "storage" section here. I even gave credit for finding the article to you, or rather to your IP, in the edit summary. But you didn't notice that; you're too busy defending your illogic with more illogic.
"This just shows you don't understand x at all", "you are just biased against x" - these are among your standard responses whenever anyone disagrees with you. Sure, every WP editor who has ever disagreed with you is wrong, and just doesn't understand anything, and you have been right.... yeah. Somehow I doubt it. Jeh (talk) 06:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ IBM chief engineer talks green storage, SearchStorage - TechTarget

Cleanup[edit]

Ok, I took a stab at cleaning it up. Would appreciate thoughts and help from other editors. Please put this article on your watchlist and keep an eye out for further attempts to spam/hijack the article. Or better yet, improve the article. I don't have the expertise to do that, unfortunately, so I did what I could.

Anyway, sorry I didn't go into blow-by-blow details in the edit summaries, but I felt like I was reading someone's rushed college paper; this article had (may still have!) so much vague generality, plagiarism and spam-linking ... I feel dirty. There's a lot of this San Murugesan guy who had entire chunks from his articles copied wholesale without attribution. Even if they had quotation marks/attribution, it seemed to be mostly an outline of how to plan a "solution". There weren't very many actual facts being presented; it was very much more of a how-to, and forgive me, but it was very Dilbert-esque. I'm still somewhat ambivalent about the remnant sentences I placed under the "Approaches to green computing" header. His definition of green computing in the lede seemed useful, though I trimmed a ton of ballast from the quote.

There were other more minor instances where a sentence or two got lifted somewhere; I put quotes around some and deleted others. There may still be a lot of it left in this article; I simply don't have time to copy-paste every sentence into Google. The green conference/company/article spam was tremendous, Two, even three mentions of the same website in the same sentence. Ick. Can I have a wiki-shower?

-- Joren (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Green Computing Education Section?[edit]

I'm new to editing Wikipedia pages so I'd love to hear some feedback before I actually try to edit one. I have an interest in green computing and have an idea about adding some content to this site. I thought a new section on green computing education might be worthwhile. I've noticed that there are a number of certifications (some mentioned briefly in other Wikipedia pages) that have, to a degree, an emphasis on green computing. Even though some may be listed on other pages, I think consolidating them here might be a good idea. Also, there are some colleges around the world that have started, or are thinking of starting, computer classes and programs that emphasize green computing techniques. I think mentioning those efforts, and maybe where some of them are taking place, would be useful information. I think this could be a nice edition to the site. Any thoughts?

Cdamcke (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Reuse" concept is lacking[edit]

I have noticed that there is a general lack of the term “reuse”, one the three R’s of waste hierarchy, in this and other recycling articles. Being “green” does not mean simplistically recycling straight into raw materials. In Germany they disassemble junked cars and reuse certain parts to avoid environmentally expensive manufacturing. If you look at electronics and mainly computer recyclers, it’s tossed right into the scrapper though most non-hard drive parts are reusable and may not be manufactured anymore yet needed. It should be pointed out in the articles that many recyclers currently refuse to practice reuse thought it may be more profitable. I was trying, but could not figure how to successfully interject these concepts into these recycling articles because these articles seem to be constructed to have a one tracked focus solely on resource recovery recycling.Septagram (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help me?? pleas...[edit]

Could someone help me with my green computing task?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariska Pretorius (talk • contribs) 06:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Green information system[edit]

There doesn't appear to be a clear dilineation between this subject and the established article at Green computing Flat Out let's discuss it 06:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


This is an entirely different field to Green computing. It is about achieving social, environmental, and economic sustainability through the use of Information Systems, and not about greening the technology itself (i.e. more energy efficient data centers). It is an established field of research in Information Systems. Refer to SIGGreen: https://siggreen.wikispaces.com/Welcome+to+the+SIGGreen+Wiki+Homepage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.36.34.167 (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Green computing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Green computing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Green computing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Green computing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mention data compression[edit]

Mention data compression can be used to reduce disk space needs. Jidanni (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add whitespace reduction example[edit]

Here (Linux) we can see if a program 

$ some_program | grep ' $'

is creating unnecessary "trailing whitespace". Jidanni (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I looked at these and liked them. I wish that I had time to go over the entire article and sources here. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Green_computing&oldid=1207423308"