ENERGY STAR®
Data Center Storage
Specification Development
SNIA Technical Symposium
Chicago, IL

July 19th, 2011

Agenda• Review of ENERGY STAR goals• Activities to date
• Test data assembly status• EPA proposal• Options for product qualification and family definition• Discussion• Brainstorming and questions• Stakeholder feedback• SNIA questions and concerns
2Review of ENERGY STAR Goals

Identify products andconfigurations thatprovide superiorenergy efficiency

Minimize
testing/reporting
burden for ENERGYSTAR partners

Fairly and consistently
represent energy
efficiency benefits ofvalid productconfigurations to end
users andsales/fulfillmentchannels

Activities to Date20092010

2011

Framework distributed
Stakeholder meeting (San Jose)
Test Procedure Workshop (Phoenix)
Start 1st round data collection
Stakeholder meeting (San Jose)
Complete 1st round data collection
Draft 1 distribution
Stakeholder meeting (Orlando)
Draft 1 comments submitted to EPA
Stakeholder meeting (San Jose)
Supplemental data collection
Stakeholder Webinar
Stakeholder Meeting (Chicago)4

First Round Test Data
17 storage
Products

42 data points*All terminology and grouping is based on SNIA’s Taxonomy

Second Round Test Data
• Designed to complement 1st round, plus to help
understand:• Variation across taxonomy categories;• Relationship between hardware/software configuration andenergy performance in both active and idle states;• Effect of drive quantity and system scaling;• Effect of RAS features (hardware or software); and,• Differences between isolation of controller vs. drawer
PSUs.

• To date EPA has received power supply data
under the 2nd round• Additional storage data is being generated.
• Will continue to accept data; including simulated data.

Stakeholder Feedback• Recognize controller characteristics• RAS• Scalability• Configuration• Cache Size
• Processor type and quantity• Host and drawer connection technology• Configured software• Evaluate with single media type• Reduces testing permutations

Stakeholder Feedback(Continued)• Recognize unique deployed storage needs:
1. Transaction
2. Streaming
3. Raw storage• E.g.: overloading controller with MAX disks.
• EPA needs to better understand this type of storage
need and how it might effect qualification approaches

ENERGY STAR Proposal

Assumptions• This proposal restricted to Online storage• EPA hopes to receive additional information pertaining to othercategories, i.e., Near Online, Tape, Virtual tape, for inclusion within
the specification.

• Most meaningful factors for energy:• Disk type
• Controller configuration• Software important, still under evaluation.
• At a minimum, software details will be included
on the Power & Performance Data SheetENERGY STAR Proposal• Establish efficiency thresholds by demand type
• Transaction-based demands• Streaming-based demands• Test a given system with• Single controller type
• Multiple media types (?)• Qualify system against thresholds set fortransaction and/or streaming• Identify which threshold is met—one or both.
• Marked as ESTAR for its demand type.

Approach for Thresholds• Based on active, idle measurements• Transaction-type demand:• More weighting to Random Operations• Streaming-type demand:• More weighting to Sequential Operations• Idle measurement• Potential approaches to determine qualification:• Calculate weighted average of performance by demand
type across loading points. Set single threshold to pass.
• Exceed some number of individual test thresholds.

Aside: A Note on Metrics andthe ENERGY STAR Label• ENERGY STAR is a single, binary label• Does not have to be a single measurement that
goes toward awarding that label.
• Hypothetical:• 4 metrics to measure storage system efficiency• May be combined in a weighted average for asingle, composite metric• Or, 3 of 4 metric values must pass theirthresholds.
• Or, define sub-set of metrics that system isintended for, pass/fail based on those.

Qualifying Mixed Storage Media• Approaches• Individually qualify media types in “singular” mediasystems• Then allow mixed systems composed of these media
to qualify.
• Allow “mixed” media systems to qualify directly.
• Issues around “mixed” systems• How would changing the ratios of media types impact
results?
• Will end consumer be able to apply mixed system results
to their situation?
• Deploying like mixed system• Deploying single media (or segmented) system

Family Proposal• Bookending• Test minimum and maximum configurations witha test point in between.
• All three test points must meet the qualificationlevels• Test point in between demonstrates equal or better
results than either maximum or minimum configuration• EPA is open to further conversations andideas for families.
• SNIA Best Foot Forward• TGG Sweet SpotQualification Questions• Does transaction / streaming approacheffectively cover anticipated deployments?
• Is there existing industry standard for weighted
formula approach?
• Will streaming criteria effectively cover “rawstorage” type demands?
• Family scope question: What can change, whatmust remain the same in a family?
• Controller options – e.g.: Cache size, Connection options• RAS features – e.g.: Redundant controllers• Scalability• Mixed / segmented media type deployments

Discussion

Brainstorming andQuestions

SNIA Questions and Concerns• For Draft 1 V1.0 ENERGY STAR Data Center Storage
specification, SNIA suggests:
1. Removing real-time temperature measurement or utilize a 30
second interval reporting
2. Removing tape storage from the eligibility criteria
3. Removing power management requirements
4. Clarifying the proposed power supply rating
5. Excluding the power supply efficiency goals for third party included
items, e.g., SAN Switches.

• How will the ENERGY STAR specification handle thedefinition and qualification of third party devices?

ENERGY STAR Answers• Temperature measurement:• Understand this is different from servers• If we want to capture temperature data, whereshould sensor go?

• Tape storage: EPA remains open to datafrom this and other categories• Power supply rating: 80+ Silver seems
appropriate

ENERGY STAR Answers (cont)• 3rd party hardware and power supplies• If ENERGY STAR has a specification for thishardware category, must use a labeled product• If not, then no requirement on 3rd party.
• Drawers and controllers may not be treated as 3rdparty hardware. Their PSUs must meet 80+Silver.

• As always, we are open to suggestions andcomments on all of these answers.

Next Steps• Additional test or simulator data will byconsidered by EPA.
• Anonymous test data and analysis will be
published on the Data Center Storage
product development website here:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=new_specs.enterprise_storage.
• A 2nd draft product specification will be
distributed for comment in the fall 2011.

Contact Information• RJ Meyers (US EPA)
– Meyers.Robert@epamail.epa.gov // 202.343.9923• Evan Haines (ICF)– ehaines@icfi.com // 781.676.4081• Nina Ruiz (ICF)– nruiz@icfi.com // 914.997.0587– Al Thomason (TBWC)– thomasonw@gmail.com

More Info:
http://www.energystar.gov/NewSpecs
22

3rd Party Testing: Entities Involved• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):Manages ENERGY STAR program• Partners: Seek product qualification• Laboratories (“Labs”): Test products• Certification Bodies (“CBs”): Provide third-party
certification of test results• Accreditation Bodies (“ABs”): Provide third-party
assurance of Lab and CB competencies

23

Product Qualification Process

Laboratory:
Accredited

ENERGY STAR
Partner

Certification
Body (CB)EPA
ENERGY STAR

Laboratory:
CB Witnessed/
Supervised24

Product Re-testing¾ Three types:
Verification
Testing

Challenge
Testing

Significant
Changes**Retesting in the caseof significant changes toa given qualified model¾ In case of failure to meet program requirements,
EPA disqualifies and delists model and/orrequires corrective and preventive measures on
the part of the Partner
25

Product Re-testing: Verification Testing¾ Verification testing
ensures models meet
ENERGY STAR
requirements postqualification¾ U.S. Department ofEnergy initiatedverification testing of
ENERGY STAR
qualified models in2010

1

10% of representative models
certified by each CB are selected fortesting by CB, with input from EPA
and possibly other third parties.

2

Partner funds verification testing,which will be off-the-shelf third-party
testing, or off-the-line first-party
testing witnessed by a third party.

3CB has units tested; shares results
and resolution of any discrepancies
with EPA.
26