ENERGY STAR® ServersFebruary 23, 2011

Server Energy Use Evaluation – Discussion Document
EPA is assembling a dataset for all servers with 1-4 processor sockets in all form factors (rack-mounted, pedestal,and blade), as listed in the scope for the Draft 1 Version 2.0 ENERGY STAR Computer Servers Specification.
This discussion document describes EPA’s needs and desired outcomes for this effort.
EPA’s primary use of the dataset will be to re-evaluate the structure for product families that is currently in effectin the Version 1.0 ENERGY STAR Servers Specification. The testing discussion in this document is designed with
the intent to identify appropriate “bookend” scenarios for the family structure. In addition to 1- and 2-socketsystems, EPA’s scope for this effort includes blade servers and 3-4 socket servers, two categories not currently
subject to Idle requirements. This data will be utilized to assess Idle requirements (levels and/or reporting) in lightof changes to the product family structure.
EPA is distributing a second document entitled, Dataset – Test Method, in parallel with this document which
includes revised definitions and testing procedures.
EPA will be hosting a stakeholder meeting on Friday, March 11, 2011, to discuss and answer questions
about this dataset assembly. EPA intends to provide an eight-week period for this round of testing after
stakeholder feedback on these documents is received and evaluated. Please contact servers@energystar.gov
with any questions.

Version 2.0 Product Family Hypothesis
EPA is revising the Computer Server Product Family structure to redefine the hardware components that must be
held constant and modify the test requirements for qualification of a product family. These revisions are intended
to (1) ensure that test data is sufficiently representative of all configurations within a product family, (2) ensurethat all configurations within the family meet ENERGY STAR requirements, and (3) significantly reduce the testingburden for ENERGY STAR Partners. Though not included as part of this dataset, the proposal also seeks toensure that a wide range of active mode performance data (acquired via the SPEC SERT tool) is generated foreach product family to provide end-users a reasonable sense of how a specific configuration will perform inrelation to actual test results.
The proposed modifications to Product Family definitions are as follows:Common Product Family Attributes: A set of features common to all models/configurations within a
product family that constitute a common basic design. All models/configurations within a product familymust share the following:obe from the same model line;oshare the same form factor (i.e., rack-mounted, blade, pedestal);oshare PSUs with both the same rated maximum output and greater than or equal to the rated
efficiency of the tested configurations at all required load points specified in Section 3.2 (i.e.,10%, 20%, 50%, and 100% for single-output; 20%, 50%, and 100% for multi-output).

Note: In the provisions for PSUs, EPA has proposed testing of only non-redundant PSUs; this recognizes that theexisting Idle Power adder for redundant PSUs is applied after measurement and avoids a double impact of
redundancy-related losses both in the measurement and in the Idle metric.
EPA also proposes that PSUs be selected using manufacturer-standard practices, with manufacturers asked toprovide EPA with their written rationale for PSU selection associated with a tested family. This will allow data torepresent a more realistic scenario and allow EPA to gain further insight into PSU loading during design.
Product Family Tested Product Configurations: This product family proposal requires five tests to define aproduct family. The variations listed here are explained within the context of an example product family

shown in Figure 1, below.

oLow-end Performance Configuration: The combination of PSUs, Memory, Storage (HDD/SDD),
and I/O devices that represents the lowest-price computing platform within the Product Family.

oHigh-end Performance Configuration: The combination of PSUs, Memory, Storage (HDD/SDD),
and I/O devices that represents either the highest-price or highest-performance computing
platform within the Product Family.

oTypical Configuration: A product configuration that lies between the Minimum and Maximum
Power configurations and is representative of a product with high volume sales.

oMinimum Power Configuration: The minimum configuration that is able to boot and executesupported OSs. The Minimum Configuration contains the least number of installed PSUs,Memory, Storage (HDD/SDD), and I/O devices, that is both offered for sale and capable ofmeeting ENERGY STAR requirements.

oMaximum Power Configuration: The vendor-selected combination of components that maximize
power usage within the Product Family once assembled and operated. The Maximum
Configuration contains the greatest number of installed PSUs, Memory, Storage (HDD/SDD), andI/O devices that is both offered for sale and capable of meeting ENERGY STAR requirements.

Product Family Tested Configurations and Examples: The five test points in Figure 1 must be tested
for each Product Family.

Figure 1: Product Family Testing
High-end – Minimum Configuration

High-end – Maximum Configuration

This test point is likely to be a
performance-oriented system outfittedwith the least number of components
available in the family.

This test point is likely to be a
performance-oriented system outfittedwith the greatest number ofcomponents available in the family.

Typical Configuration
Δ Purchase
Considerations

The vendor-selected components that
represent highest-volume deployedconfiguration.

Low-end – Minimum Configuration

Low-end – Maximum Configuration

This test point is likely to be a costconscious system outfitted with theleast number of components available
in the family.

This test point is likely to be a costconscious system outfitted with thegreatest number of components
available in the family.
Δ Power

Product Family Hypothesis - Example
The following example illustrates representative testing of a set of configurations within a server product family.
The example includes variations of a 4-socket system with multiple CPU, Memory, Disk, and Power Supplyoptions.

Server Common Product Family Attributes:• Model Line: A1234 Server• Form Factor: Rack-mounted• Motherboard: Model MB1203 w/ 4 CPU Sockets• Other Characteristics:o 1 or 2 - (Single, or redundant) Power Supplies
o 5 - I/O Expansion Slotso 4 - 3.5” HDD Slotso 12 - Memory (DIMM) Slots
CPU Options:• 1.5 GHz / 4MBb Cache / 2 Core / 80W• 1.8 GHz / 2MB Cache / 2 Core / 80W• 2.2 GHz / 4MB Cache / 4 Core / 60W – Energy Optimized• 2.6 GHz / 4MB Cache / 4 Core / 95W• 3.2 GHz / 6MB Cache / 6 Core / 105W
Memory Options (per DIMM):• 256 MB• 1 GB• 2 GB• 8 GBStorage:• 750 GB / 10,000 RPM / SAS / 3.5”
• 1 TB 7,200 RPM / SAS / 3.5”
• 1.5 TB / 5,600 RPM / SATA / 3.5”
• 260 GB / SSD / SAS / 3.5”
Power Supply:• 500 W Universal, Single or Redundant• 750 W Universal, Single or RedundantFigure 2: Product Family Example
High-end – Minimum Configuration

High-end – Maximum Configuration

1x 2.2 GHz, 4 MB Cache, 4 Core CPU
1x 1 GB Memory
1x 260 GB, SAS SSD
Single 750W Power Supply

4x 3.2GHz, 6MB Cache, 6 Core CPU
12 x 8 GB Memory
4x 750 GB, 10K SAS HDDs
Redundant 750W Power Supplies

Typical Configuration
Δ Purchase
Considerations

4x 2.6GHz, 4MB Cache, 2 Core CPU
10x 2GB Memory
2x 1TB, 7.2K SAS HDDs
Dual N500W Power Supplies

Low-end – Minimum Configuration

Low-end – Maximum Configuration

1x 1.5GHz, 4MB Cache, 2 Core CPU
2x 256MB Memory
1x 1.5TB, 5.6K SATA HDDs
Single 500W Power Supply

4x 1.8GHz, 2MB Cache, 2 Core CPU
12x 2GB Memory
4x 1.5TB, 5.6K SATA HDDs
Redundant 500W Power Supplies

Δ Power

Testing Description
To aid in the development of the product family definition proposed above, EPA recommends testing as follows:Type of data: The following test procedure collects Idle State and Full Load power data for each unit
under test to accompany configuration details.

Tested Configurations: Where possible, EPA is interested in data that shows the impact of hardware
configuration changes on similar server platforms. The following recommendations should be used toguide selection of products for evaluation:
A. Processora. Choose base configurations with processors for each available core count per socket and rated
power that represent, at a minimum, the highest and lowest available rated system speed (FSB).
This processor shall be used across a set of typical, maximum, and minimum testing runs.
b. For the typical configuration, test the same configuration with a processor socket unpopulated (ifoffered as an option to customers).
B. PSU – Choose power supply options that represent typical options for customers (if applicable, selectboth PSUs optimized for efficiency and standard models). PSUs should be selected using a
manufacturer’s standard practices, with a brief, written rationale/explanation of why the PSUs wereselected for each configuration accompanying power data (e.g., PSU was tuned to Full Load Powerof the configuration, PSU is the only option available across the family).
C. HDD or SSD – Include storage elements that represent a range of customer preferences (i.e., highperformance HDDs versus high efficiency HDDs, etc.).

D. Memory (DIMM) – Consider testing several vintages of memory technology such that EPA canevaluate the impact of new memory technologies on overall server efficiency.
E. I/O Device – Provision systems with minimal I/O add-in cards; for testing, ensure the server offers atleast one Ethernet port (using a single add-in card only if no onboard Ethernet support is offered).
EPA welcomes device-level power information on I/O devices to build on the existing I/O dataset from
Version 1, available at
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/new_specs/downloads/servers/Final_Draft_Server_IO_Data_Set.xls.
Testing: In the Server Energy Use Evaluation- Resources document, the test procedure presented inDraft 1 has been updated per stakeholder comments. Specific testing instructions for each applicableproduct type:Non-blade Servers:
A. Configure as noted in Section 5.
B. Complete testing as specified in Section 6.1
C. Testing for low power modes in Section 7.2 is additionally encouraged.
Blade Servers:
A. Conduct a partially-populated test using a commercially-available blade chassis with half of theavailable bays populated, to the nearest full power domain supported by installed power supplies.
Proceed with testing as specified in Section 6.1. EPA welcomes additional data from fully-populatedchassis if manufacturers wish to provide it in addition to half-populated data.
B. Repeat testing as specified in Section 6.1 with a single blade server removed from the chassis as
directed in step 7.
C. Report details for the blade chassis as required as specified in Section 7.1.
D. Testing for low power modes in Section 7.2 is additionally encouraged.