[irtf-discuss] Network Equipment Energy Efficiency Metric

Hesham ElBakoury <helbakoury@gmail.com> Mon, 11 November 2024 20:14 UTC

Return-Path: <helbakoury@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB426C14F5F2 for <irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 12:14:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.103
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cjZM53CVgBE6 for <irtf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 12:14:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x631.google.com (mail-pl1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::631]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1A74C1CAE7D for <irtf-discuss@irtf.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 12:14:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x631.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-20caea61132so42562365ad.2 for <irtf-discuss@irtf.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 12:14:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1731356045; x=1731960845; darn=irtf.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=yp8jn0BwiADmnj0077AVKHhy/IuMuY0txp9SO94tK8o=; b=bLYeHRZIsXsFE6LQPpB9cC2mL2rD/2Bfqj0XJrqAqGfPI2iVIuBmJzs2KsgPdtWAQw 4ErsVAGffrW1VBUVMZGLYKYg+wgeRPwqISL40SkXMeRVbLd2V/GZvBrrQZ30Q2S/A4QB WMepStFwYlEDLCpYEH7JyEmfqkXX1eNsKet3a2F0GKhQ4k8b5o7nvyYVNaijEybaMRMP yDLqcFbesxqXSqw5EzNRHUqBY3y78peYn4ZrDFPLakEZQeV/3nt/k1Y54+HMqOSL9b59 hOKhEAy38MXmeGsYeMkgeYqjY4pdoWjkyIz8wDwpV70xw8g2otYbr8HU6BbTHkOKqFNy kx+w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1731356045; x=1731960845; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=yp8jn0BwiADmnj0077AVKHhy/IuMuY0txp9SO94tK8o=; b=jr0LtiSfpoPf0ZiXKo0d99v9tj44UJjKuxCR24w7xRJjaJ+Xly6dzJsusnBU8aZeAN E2TQ3CS1/W0mZcmEBniOAKEhruBjd+XOlSkpPXOaenmh1unxhaUHcZCbv5AcJKrzNZI1 exH6Tpe/tYP7N0RzNGeiASOwSXD5/SjnV3FScN7TZkmrRqAxZMDsJ9pP+j4+6UY7wz7R sZEeri65wce4+adKrSzV78U4eagkD2pLA/S7v3gpn5S+hnx/Yt9MJ7NH0KilomjcjQCJ wh90qoBbd+bFtvOwJhKVCuwABdHS2VgoZLF5P0Sv3nRPdJukTgHb+FOXZuKWrGKNs+a0 kVIQ==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXqv0u7wY4noL5yUUZh788+8wbt332jCX/NKG/ic8yaY4n8pZf+aWz4Q7HqpPeIFy+X9fdTFDjJiuXB+UY=@irtf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yychw2P/agEaoId0RDmLgMVNcTCGsJCefkL+nVFmxT0+WVnkzFj idjPZ2rmmmYnfnpmaSwSBA7B9Dzh4DcsSm7E4npXGp4rm1TbQ/9vcA8JrNHfEc8jtsxBYkmulbv K2PDuSQyv4SVmIPBSDk5RTk+1mloiBw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHz6dlb6r6aZU+J2wdKikbOlrG+FQ3u1uCcaOcC+zQEWp+lvl9t3QEKVTZH6Tap16De1FVdf0v3oWMF/LesCw0=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:1247:b0:20c:79bf:6793 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-211834de5afmr201196945ad.3.1731356044855; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 12:14:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Hesham ElBakoury <helbakoury@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 12:13:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CAFvDQ9ruuSkrxU4wQz21Ldfp4T4s2MnojJ3H9TFBHdBsQdZm5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: green@ietf.org, E-Impact IETF <e-impact@ietf.org>, irtf-discuss@irtf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000008910f0626a8be97"
Message-ID-Hash: G3VJVZEZUQGK7UJWGYVP4VBCNHIDXW7Z
X-Message-ID-Hash: G3VJVZEZUQGK7UJWGYVP4VBCNHIDXW7Z
X-MailFrom: helbakoury@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-irtf-discuss.irtf.org-0; header-match-irtf-discuss.irtf.org-1; header-match-irtf-discuss.irtf.org-2; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [irtf-discuss] Network Equipment Energy Efficiency Metric
List-Id: IRTF general and new-work discussion list <irtf-discuss.irtf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/irtf-discuss/dT9cUURiZWq_PqixwID9TQsg-5o>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/irtf-discuss>
List-Help: <mailto:irtf-discuss-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:irtf-discuss-owner@irtf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:irtf-discuss@irtf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:irtf-discuss-join@irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:irtf-discuss-leave@irtf.org>

Dean and Tony presented set of metrics in the GREEN WG meetings one of them
is *Network Equipment Energy Efficiency* metric. I think this is the the
kWh/GB  metric which although it is used, we debated it for quite sometime
in e-impact.

I recall that Rudolf calls this metric nonsense and should be banned,
because "it doesn't convey any comparable and actionable meaning. The
numbers are incomparable because traffic and energy use are in no way and
have never been related. How is it possible that with the exact same
network and equipment the energy use is stable when traffic goes up?"

The Journal of Industrial Ecology
<http://davidmytton.blog/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=26a31a773b7bba39c75caf0de4d5c5b2044163406de0898dfdfa2c769ab31970&blog_id=140180607&post_id=4707&user_id=244835025&subs_id=408283364&signature=6485fa34baff8ccaeb16b8eaf6822554&email_name=new-post&user_email=helbakoury@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cHM6Ly9vbmxpbmVsaWJyYXJ5LndpbGV5LmNvbS9qb3VybmFsLzE1MzA5Mjkw>
 published
a new paper co-authored by Dag Lundén and Jens Malmodin.  Paper Title: Network
energy use not directly proportional to data volume: The power model
approach for more reliable network energy consumption calculations
<http://davidmytton.blog/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=85c1e5d13df5d1118d082181ed00f6e7a5ed7a2046c0eb8de4b50f9fb0af4d12&blog_id=140180607&post_id=4707&user_id=244835025&subs_id=408283364&signature=51744c392cee5b2ee750ad1c052559d5&email_name=new-post&user_email=helbakoury@gmail.com&encoded_url=aHR0cDovL2RvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTExMS9qaWVjLjEzNTEy>
.

The idea in this paper is that many modelers have assumed a linear
relationship between data volume and energy consumption. This fails to
account for idle power consumption and other factors. Also, networks are
typically too complex to model its energy efficiency with a number as
simple as joules/bit. This paper suggests the Power Model which has its
limitations.

The main conclusion of the paper is that
 "There is now sufficient evidence from many organizations from a range of
different geographies to demonstrate the lack of a connection between
network usage and total energy. Combining this with a commonsense approach
that total energy of a network device cannot exceed the total maximum power
of that device and an understanding of how networks are provisioned for
redundancy and peak capacity proves that network energy use is not directly
proportional to data volume"

Over the years we have seen many publications offering their ideas and
suggestions for energy efficiency metrics, but they have their flaws and
shrotcomings. I doubt there is a "perfect" metric for systems as complex
and multifaceted as a communications network.

Comments?