Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Introduction Cloud computing
Popular (large-scale, flexible, ubiquitous)
Environmental impact
ICT industry - 2% of all the CO2 emissions
The Kyoto protocol
Attempts to stabilize CO2-equivalent (CO2e) emissions
The cap-and-trade mechanism: CO2e = $
Goals A model integrating clouds with the Kyoto protocol
Emission trading markets (ETMs)
Kyoto protocol
Entities – CO2e emissions bellow a certain cap
Bellow the cap – sell certified emission reductions (CERs) on ETMs
Above the cap – must buy CERs on ETMs
Current state Entities < 25 MtCO2e/year excluded
Cloud providers
Energy producers – highest responsibility
3 biggest losers on the EU ETM
The classical emission-trading
model
The emission-trading cloud model
Controlling en. efficiency
Power usage efficiency (PUE) Infrastructure efficiency
What about the computation? The applications – many, hard to influence
The scheduler
Existing measures Mostly a best-effort manner
Save as long as the user is provisioned
We want an explicit expression How much to provide?
How much to save?
Resource scheduling
Wastage: energy & CO2e
Penalty:SLA violations
Penalty-wastage balance
The wastage cost (linear model):
The (expected) penalty cost (linear model):
The penalty-wastage balance cwastage = E(Cpenal):
Usage potential
Handy input of any Rdemand distribution
Dependent only of the mean and variance
Applicable even without Kyoto measures
To exclude CO2e prices state cco2=0
Potential as a heuristic function Stay close to the statistical equilibrium
Integration with existing schedulers
Conclusion A Kyoto protocol-compliant cloud model
Shifting CO2 responsibilities to cloud providers
Increased chance of fulfilling the Kyoto protocol goals
Energy efficiency control
A wastage-penalty equilibrium
Expresses energy wastage – CO2 and energy price
Explicitly compare it to penalty costs
Applicable in schedulers
Thank you!
