# MUXER--A New Equipment for Energy Saving in Ethernet
## 5 Discussion  
From the data shown in Figure 11, we can observe the power consumption rate of network devices (minimum port, half port and full port) with states changing from idle state to three different percentage of traffic load like 10%, 50% and 100% directed us to follow linear model. For this work, along with our experimental device's behavior, we followed the linear model, but since design architecture of network equipment are always changing, our model can mismatch with other work [40]. Still we inspired from few more recent relevant work (considered perfectly linear behavior with respect to load), [15; 41; 42; 43] to have a conclusion that power consumption of network devices can considered as linear with respect to load, and decided to use that for the rest of our experimental calculations. Hopefully in future we will try our device MUXER in consideration with power load as non-linear.  
To have a conclusion about the effectiveness of model 2 when it is compared with model 1 in low-load traffic conditions, this paper considers on two cases: first, there are 584 switches in the network, and the percentage of the turn-on switches is increased from 20% to 80%; second, this paper considers a network with 10 switches in the network, and the percentage of the turn-on switches also is increased from 20% to 80%. In two cases, the ratio of the number of active switch's ports are respectively 10%, 40%, 60%, and 80%.  
In the first case, Figure 12 shows the power consumption's results of the two models. It shows the power consumption of model 1 is constant (black surface), while the values of model 2 are increased based on the number of turn-on switches and the number of MUXERs.  
As the result of Figure 12, model 2 is only really more effective than model 1 when we use the suitable number of MUXERs in network which are correspondence with the current number of active switches' ports in network. Otherwise, model 2 consumes more energy than model 1, especially when there is a few active switches' ports in network, as shown in Figure 12a when the number of active switches' ports in network are just 10%.  
Figure 13 shows the results of the second case. In this case, for the small number of switches in network, if a network administrator puts an unreasonable number of MUXERs, the power consumption of model 2 also consumes more power than model 1 (Figure 13a). In both two cases, when we put the corresponding number of MUXERs with the number of turn-on switches in the network, the power consumption results in model 2 show more effectively than model 1. It means that network administrators must know clearly the statuses of their networks: when their network is in high traffic, normal traffic, and low traffic load conditions to decide the reasonable number of MUXERs need to be put in the networks.  
Figure 12: _Cont._  
Figure 12: Power consumption results of model 1 and model 2 with \(n=584\) switches, and \(\alpha=(0.1,0.4,\)\(0.6,0.8)\). (a) \(\alpha=0.1\); (b) \(\alpha=0.4\); (c) \(\alpha=0.6\); (d) \(\alpha=0.8\).  
Figure 13: _Cont._  
Figure 13: Power consumption of model 1 and model 2 with \(n=10\) switches, and \(\alpha=(0.1,\,0.4,\,0.6,\,0.8)\) (a) \(\alpha=0.1\); (b) \(\alpha=0.4\); (c) \(\alpha=0.6\); (d) \(\alpha=0.8\).