How To Choose Data Centre Performance Kpis

(1)

Environmentally sound

1

Data Centres:

Policy measures, metrics, and

methodologies

Summary report on a workshop organised by DG CONNECT on 1

st

April 2014

09.07.2014

1_{The original title „Green Data Centres: ...“ has been reformulated, reflecting the wide view of the workshop}

(2)

Prepared by maki Consulting for the European Commission, DG CONNECT, Unit H5 ii Disclaimer: This report reflects the views only of the workshop participants, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use, which may be made of the information contained therein. The rapporteur has compiled the report based on the background material provided by the participants, as well as presentations and discussions during the workshop. He has subsequently integrated the participants’ feedback on the draft report to the best knowledge. Additional reporting by Mike Gilmore is gratefully acknowledged.

Prepared for:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (CONNECT) Directorate Sustainable & Secure Society (CONNECT-H)

Unit Smart Cities & Sustainability (CONNECT-H5) Contact Officer: Svetoslav MIHAYLOV

Prepared by:

Marc-Andree Wolf maki Consulting

Am Falkenberg 66 - D-12524 Berlin - Germany

www.maki-consulting.com - [email protected]

Office: +49 (0)30 91480208 - Mob: +49 (0)152 52725303 - FAX: +49 (0)30 91462241

maki Consulting is a company in sole proprietorship and registered in Germany with the owner Marc-Andree Wolf

(3)

Prepared by maki Consulting for the European Commission, DG CONNECT, Unit H5 iii

Table of contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

……….……….….iv

1 INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1 Context ... 1

1.2 Purpose and scope of the workshop and this report ... 1

2 IS THERE A LACK OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY MEASURES AND PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA ON DATA CENTRES? ... 3

2.1 Current situation ... 3

2.2 Challenges/Discussion ... 4

2.3 Options... 7

2.4 Recommendations ... 8

3 IS THERE A NEED OF NEW METRICS / HARMONISATION OF EXISTING ONES ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF DATA CENTRES? ... 9

3.1 Current situation ... 9

3.2 Challenges/Discussion ... 11

3.3 Options... 14

3.4 Recommendations ... 14

4 SHOULD THE DATA CENTRE, IN THE CONTEXT OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY MEASURES / METHODOLOGIES / METRICS, BE APPROACHED AS A SYSTEM OR SHOULD IT BE APPROACHED AS ITS INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS? .. 15

4.1 Current situation ... 15 4.2 Challenges/Discussion ... 15 4.3 Options... 16 4.4 Recommendations ... 16 5 REFERENCES ... 17 6 ANNEX I:ACRONYMS ... 19

7 ANNEX II:AGENDA... 21

(4)

Prepared by maki Consulting for the European Commission, DG CONNECT, Unit H5 iv

Executive Summary

Purpose of the workshop

The purpose of the workshop was to help DG CONNECT define future policies and actions in the area of data centre energy efficiency and environmental performance.

The issue

The share of data centres in electricity consumption now reaches 2% globally, with a high, exponential growth rate. Data centres hence contribute a relevant and growing share to the EU overall energy consumption and environmental impact.

This growth is driven by the strongly growing amount of data generated by citizens, companies and public institutions that outpaces efficiency improvements of data centre technology and management.

Faster internet access as part of the problem

Pursuing a faster internet access for all users is on the one hand recognised as key for economic growth. This development is identified, on the other hand, as a driver for data growth, particularly via social media and video streaming, not to mention the expected increase through the developing Internet of Things (IoT).

The participants recommend in view of the environmental implications that policies promoting and facilitating a fast growth of bandwidth in the EU should take quantitatively into account the limitations of technological developments to cope, in environmental terms, with this intended growth.

Metrics and indicators

As to environmental metrics and environmental Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), a wide range of such indicators has been developed over the past decade. Most participants see no need for new or further developed indicators. Instead, they recommend filtering the over 50 KPIs down to the relevant ones for the sought objective, using a systematic approach, and considering their practicality but also other aspects. Such work is already under way by the Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) and in several ongoing EU FP7 research projects. Several KPIs have been already pre-selected by the SDOs for consideration and possible standardisation. Harmonisation of how to measure the finally selected KPIs would be the next step, promotion of their voluntary use the last step needed. The subsequent choice and use of the KPIs for internal analysis and external communication/marketing should be left to the data centre operators, according to a majority of the participants, taking into account the local situation with e.g. water shortage favouring water-related KPIs. It was however also widely agreed among the participants that these currently discussed KPIs, including the most widely used Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE), are not suitable and have not been developed for comparisons of data centres and data centre services. They do not consider the important computational performance, hence do not effectively indicate environmental preference, and therefore cannot help procurers to identify more environmentally sound data centres. Several participants therefore recommended (further) development of more advanced, performance-based metrics/KPIs.

There was limited support among the participants for the EC to play a role in further harmonising/developing KPIs and the life cycle based methods that were developed by the

(5)

Prepared by maki Consulting for the European Commission, DG CONNECT, Unit H5 v SDOs and private organisations. The supportive participants have however highlighted the necessity to overcome the weaknesses of the currently available indicators as well as the insufficient reproducibility and hence comparability of the ICT- or Data centre-specific life cycle based methods: Both would warrant EC involvement, since the efforts of standardisation and private initiatives did not solve these issues.

Policy instruments

Similarly to the situation for environmental indicators, policies on EU-level or in the EU Member States (MS) that would address the overall energy efficiency or environmental performance of the large majority of data centres and their services, do not exist. Existing policies relate instead to single components or the data centre building or address only specific aspects.

Most participants however disfavour new policy measures on data centres. They highlight the achievements of standardisation and that the high share of energy costs for data centres would automatically lead to environmental improvements by efforts undertaken for reducing energy consumption.

However, the lack of effective environmental policies on the data centre system and services, were the arguments by some participants to recommend instead the development of new policies. The aim of lowering the ICT industry’s own environmental footprint and its better contribution to the EU2020 targets could otherwise not be achieved. Such policies should then consider the data centre’s computational performance as basis for the environmental performance and - in view of some participants – in addition be life cycle based.

Best practice guides instead of policies

The uptake by the EC, promotion, and translation of documents such as the EU Code-of-Conduct for Data Centre Energy Efficiency (EUCoCDC2) to EU main languages was generally recommended as an important measure to help improve operational energy-efficiency of data centres. Maintenance and further detailing of the EUCoCDC was argued to be important and funds should be made available to this end. In view of some participants, the EUCoCDC could be made mandatory for data centres in the EU and data centre services offered in the EU market.

The development of training materials and University courses on environmentally sound data centres were generally seen as further, important measures.

Data Centres as a system and the need for differentiation

It was generally agreed among the participants that the overall performance and environmental impact of the data centre needs to be improved in system perspective: a data centre is more than the sum of its components. Moreover, the actual operation needs to be considered beyond the design specifications of the data centre. To ensure validity, data centre differences in type, availability class, security-level, size, and location would need to be considered by any potential policy measures. The fact that data centre hardware is

2

Institute for Energy and Transport (IET), JRC, EC (2014): Best Practices for the EU Code of Conduct on Data Centres. Version 5.1.1

(6)

Prepared by maki Consulting for the European Commission, DG CONNECT, Unit H5 vi constantly being replaced over the data centre life time - with different life times of the different kind of components and new technologies being introduced - would have to be taken into account by any policy measure, as well.

It was moreover generally supported by the participants that new policies should not set fixed limits for KPIs and that the enabling effect of data centres on other industries must not be negatively impacted by the policies.

The focus of measures should finally be the data centre’s use phase, while shifting of environmental burdens to production or end-of-life should at least be monitored.

(7)

Prepared by maki Consulting for the European Commission, DG CONNECT, Unit H5 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Context

The European Commission has put energy efficiency and sustainability aspects of ICT at the forefront of the Digital Agenda. Key action 12 invites the industry to propose a common framework to account for its energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The adoption of such methodologies by the industry should lead to increased transparency and create a better level playing field for competing around environmental performance.

The ICT industry has mobilized resources to contribute to international standardization organizations and industry-led consortia to develop related methodologies. The European Commission aims to ensure that these methodologies are in line with its environmental objectives and policies. It also intends to potentially use them as a basis for future policy initiatives in the area of energy efficiency and the environmental impact of ICT.

The storage of the ever-increasing amounts of data generated by citizens, companies and governments level is increasingly being moved from in-house servers and server-rooms to external facilities: Data Centres. Data Centres (DC) are defined in European Standardisation as “a structure, or group of structures, dedicated to the centralised accommodation, interconnection and operation of information technology and network telecommunications equipment providing data storage, processing and transport services together with all the facilities and infrastructures for power distribution and environmental control together with the necessary levels of resilience and security required to provide the desired service availability”.

The overall energy consumption and environmental impact of data centres is growing at a high rate, although commercial or multi-tenant data centres are understood to offer in principle the possibility of better environmental and energetic performance than decentralised solutions. This increase is due to the growing number of data centre capacity, which is driven by the strongly growing amount of data. The share of data centres in national electricity consumption was in 2010 around 2% in the U.S. (1.7 - 2.2%) and 1.1 to 1.5% globally3. Since then it has reaches 2% globally at high annual growth rates4.

1.2 Purpose and scope of the workshop and this report

This report summarises the views, arguments and recommendations expressed in the workshop and the position papers submitted prior to the WS by some participating organisations. The report is structured in its main part along the following guiding questions of the workshop:

 Is there a lack of environmental policy measures and publicly available data on Data Centres?

3

Jonathan Koomey. 2011. Growth in Data center electricity use 2005 to 2010. Oakland, CA: Analytics Press. August 1. http://www.analyticspress.com/datacenters.html

(8)

 Is there a need of new metrics / harmonisation of existing ones on the environmental impact of Data Centres?

 Should the Data Centre, in the context of environmental policy

measures/methodologies/metrics, be approached as a system or should it be approached as its individual components?

This summary is prepared in view of the expressed purpose of the workshop to help DG CONNECT define future policies and actions in the area of data centre energy and environmental efficiency.

(9)

2 Is there a lack of environmental policy measures

and publicly available data on Data Centres?

2.1 Current situation

The following, main EU environmental policy targets and instruments are in place that directly or indirectly relate to ICT, and hence also to data centres:

 March 2010 – Europe 2020: Smart, Sustainable and inclusive Growth: Confirmation of 20/20/20 targets for 2020.

 March 2011 – Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy by 2050: GHG emissions by 80-95% below 1990 values by 2050.

 July 2012 – European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities: large-scale deployment of smart city solutions in Europe, focusing on intersections of ICT, energy and transport.

 September 2012 – European Cloud Computing Strategy: Unleashing potential of Cloud Computing in Europe.

 June 2013 – Start of the Ecodesign Directive’s preparatory study on "enterprise servers and ancillary equipment": The study assesses the feasibility of ecodesign requirements and/or of an energy labelling scheme for enterprise servers, data storage devices and transmission equipment. Implementing Measures (IMs) are already in place that relate to chargers for computers and small servers.

 January 2014 – A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030: GHG emissions 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. Renewable energy share to increase to at least 27% by 2030.

It was moreover pointed out by some participants that additional European or national policy instruments directly deal with the hardware of the data centre or at corporate level, including CRC and CCL for UK industry and mandatory carbon reporting as well as the EU ETS (ETS for a few especially large facilities only). In addition, a current UK governmental scheme grants limited tax reductions for those data centres of the size class above 200 kW that report their PUE and achieve a reduction in their PUE. However, the environmental and general benefit of these policy instruments was doubted by these participants. These policies in any case do cover only specific aspects and were not made to serve GPP and similar needs for comparable information on the environmental performance of data centres and data centre services.

Next to policies, EU research funding has been put on various data centre-specific and horizontal themes under FP7 and H2020. Examples of ongoing or completed research projects are CoolEmAll, All4Green, Fit4Green, GAMES, RenewIT, GreenDataNet, Dolfin, GENiC, DC4Cities, GEYSER, and PEDCA. A new call was open at the time of the workshop under H2020 on support to GPP of innovative technologies, including data centres.

(10)

2.2 Challenges/Discussion

Current EU policy measures are forecasted to achieve a reduction by 40% of greenhouse gases by 2050 compared to 1990, i.e. half of the minimum aim of the EC of minus 80%. Additional or improved measures or other initiatives are therefore needed. Among the EU2020 targets, the energy-efficiency target is currently seen as the most challenging one to achieve5.

Data centres play an important role in this context, as they are large electricity consumers and hence CO2 emitters that show a strong exponential increase in global energy

consumption and hence emissions: Data centres consume today more than 2% of global electricity (expected to double soon). As important drivers for this exponential growth in data, social media and video streaming were identified by the participants, more than industry, education and other such uses.

At the same time, ICT helps other industries to reduce their environmental footprint by its enabling effect, i.e. by providing the ICT hardware and software support to better measure, analyse and manage emissions and resource consumptions at these other industries. This important function of ICT should not be negatively impacted by environmental policy measures on data centres.

Potential policy measures and KPIs moreover face the challenge of very different types and sizes of data centres. Given different business concepts and ownership models, information and data that are required to quantify the energy efficiency and environmental performance of a data centre and the options for improvement may lay with different organisations, as the following overview of the main types of big data centres shows:

 Enterprise data centre: operated by an enterprise with the sole purpose of the delivery and management of services to the enterprise’s employees and customers. Owner, operator and (main) user of data centre is the same organisation, bearing all energy cost and having access to all relevant energy efficiency and environmentally relevant data.

 Co-hosting data centre: multiple customers are provided with access to network(s), servers and storage equipment on which they operate their own services/applications. Both the information technology equipment and the support infrastructure of the building are provided as a service by the data centre operator, who bears initially all energy costs, while users pay indirectly, depending on their contracts/tariffs, which are not related to energy consumption and often are flat rates. Energy efficiency and environmentally relevant data is available at the same organisation.

 Co-location data centre: A data centre where multiple carriers create a carrier dense network for customers to locate their own servers and storage equipment in a common structure. The support infrastructure of the data centre (such as power distribution, security and environmental control) is provided as a service by the data centre infrastructure operator, who bears all initial energy costs. Customers pay energy costs to data centre infrastructure operator, based on their contract which include actual

5

(11)

Prepared by maki Consulting for the European Commission, DG CONNECT, Unit H5 5 energy consumption and a possible fee related to the additional energy costs such as cooling systems, UPS and other losses. Energy efficiency and environmentally relevant data is hence spread across different actors.

 Network operator data centre: primary purpose is the delivery and management of broadband services to the operator’s customers (= “Core network”- attached operator sites). The data centre operator bears initially all energy costs and the final users pay indirectly, depending on their contracts/tariffs, while these are not related to energy consumption and often are flat rates; similar to “Co-hosting data centre”. Energy efficiency and environmentally relevant data is spread across different actors. It was also widely agreed by the participants that the large majority of data centres by number are small single rack and single room data centres, typically without active cooling equipment, separate power supply etc. This needs to be taken into account for potential policy measures and KPIs. It was however not clarified, which share of overall data storage and traffic is made up of small and large data centres, respectively.

In addition to the main types of big data centres, as listed above, their individual availability (i.e. the amount of redundant paths/systems) and security level (i.e. the amount of security components – firewalls, intrusion protection systems, etc.) have to be taken into account by policies, KPIs and comparisons. The four availability tiers of data centres and specific security objectives for certain data centres were argued to come along unavoidable with a different extent of redundant equipment and different energy efficiency and environmental impact for the same amount of data stored, processed and transmitted.

Policies and KPIs on data centres face moreover the reality that data centres are constantly changing systems with different components of different life times: basic infrastructure, cables, cooling equipment may be in use for e.g. 10 to 15 years, but some core elements such as CPUs may be changed already any 3 to 5 years (or even annually in some especially large enterprise data centres), storage equipment e.g. any 4 to 7 years, and network equipment e.g. any 8 to 12 years. Uptake of beneficial new technologies must not be hampered by any policy measure. Also, existing hardware-related performance-limitations cannot be changed by new policies. Policies can only address data centre operation and new hardware, meaning that some of the possible improvements can be effective only some years later.

It was also pointed out that if energy efficiency was suddenly substantially improved, the amount of “waste heat” would diminish, undermining any capital investment made for using the waste heat.

It was also argued that any attempt to artificially increase energy costs for high energy use data centres could cause their construction outside the EU, as energy costs differ in each country. This could also drive the re-location of enterprises associated with the data centres (due to issues such as latency). Moreover, considerations of data security may be of importance, as EU citizen and companies would lose physical control of their data. Also, where data centres move to e.g. China with less clean electricity production, the net environmental effect could be negative.

A participant highlighted that the promotion of GPP when purchasing data centre or data centre services faces moreover the general challenge of budget limitations/reductions.

The topic of publicly available data on data centres was discussed during the WS exclusively in terms of core energy consumption data that must be published by data centres

(12)

Prepared by maki Consulting for the European Commission, DG CONNECT, Unit H5 6 that sign the European Code of Conduct for Energy Efficiency in Data Centres (EUCoCDC), which has been developed under the lead of the EC’s JRC. Some participants however criticize the EUCoCDC as not taking appropriately into account existing European Standards (incl. CENELEC EN 50 600 series, ETSI ES 205 200 series, ETSI TS 105 174 series, ETSI GS OEU 001) and prefer to first develop a European Standard, based on the EUCoCDC. Other data, e.g. life cycle assessment (LCA), or data on the computational performance were not addressed in the WS.

The distorted perception in the public of big data centres as being environmentally problematic because of their size should be overcome: commercial data centres that are driven by profitability and hence put special effort to reduce energy-cost were argued to be more energy-efficient than enterprise data centres and server rooms, a view generally supported by the participants. Also generally is the public image of data centre operators important for them, including their environmental image, why measures would be undertaken to improve it.

It was argued that environmental policies on data centres might negatively affect the perceived environmentally beneficial trend of shifting data from less efficient in-house servers and small data centres to large commercial data centres. This view assumes that legislation would have a cut-off, excluding data centres below a certain size and thereby rendering exclusively the large data centres more costly. It was also said that the net environmental benefit of shifting data to big commercial data centres could be small or even negative, because many small data centres would still be kept.

The actual relevance of the use phase of the data centre as opposed to hardware production and end-of-life/waste management was judged differently by the participants. It was however generally supported that the use phase is the most important life cycle phase in terms of energy consumption over the life cycle and potentially having also the biggest energy-related improvement potential.

While the majority of the participants did not see the need for any new environmental policy measures on data centres, a few other participants saw the need for such policies as well as for better metrics (see chapter 3.4). The first group claimed that new data centres are energy-efficient because energy cost is a main (sometimes: the main) cost factor, which was however contradicted by an example of a large bank’s data centre where energy cost make up a much smaller share of total cost, with the large majority being staff and services cost and hardware cost.

The majority of the participants recommend that instead of “hard” policy measures, the EC should endorse and promote soft ones such as the EUCoCDC. SDOs could maintain the EUCoCDC as a TR. Further detailing and differentiating the guidance would be good, as well as translation to other EU languages. Updating of the EUCoCDC could draw on the Green Grid’s Data Centre Maturity Model (DCMM). (Other guides were named e.g. by ETSI and the ITU on infrastructure design and operation, which share a common core with the EUCoCDC.) The level of awareness and use of the EUCoCDC particularly among small data centres should be increased. In this context, the need for the development of training material and of education courses at University level were highlighted as important to contribute to achieve better data centre energy management and energy-efficiency.

The pro-new-environmental-policy group argued that promoting good practice via the EUCoCDC alone did not allow procurement to differentiate between data centres of different environmental performance: none of those KPIs that were currently favoured by

(13)

Prepared by maki Consulting for the European Commission, DG CONNECT, Unit H5 7 the data centre industry and that were subject to discussion on their potential standardisation (see chapter 3.4) expresses the environmental performance of data centres. Moreover, they are not made for and may not be used for comparisons among data centres, according to their developers.

“Software improvement” is another heading of a set of areas for improving overall data centre performance: Smart ways to increase the value of the actual task supported by data centres should be identified and followed, e.g. increase the usefulness of an internet search provider request return. Also reducing data duplication within and across data centres (e.g. video-on-demand) was named as an option with room for improvement. Multiple, parallel requests sent by users should be better managed, since all but one are cancelled when the first results come in. Moreover, upcoming research projects on smart cities were named as an option to further exploit the system integration and enabling potential of ICT and data centres.

Development of new uses of waste heat and other system integration was suggested, while dependency of the partners with changing technologies (e.g. “no-cooling data centres” are upcoming) was named as a limit to this option. Similarly, offering free heat for district heating in existing housing infrastructure was found not viable in one case in the UK due to installation costs, although the heat was for free.

Focus of initial measures should be on the data centre use phase, while a shifting of environmental impacts to infrastructure and hardware production or end-of-life impacts should at least be monitored, since environmental impacts are not only related to energy consumption, but also to process-specific emissions during production and during end-of-life management of the equipment.

The participants recommend in view of the environmental implications that policies promoting and facilitating a fast growth of bandwidth in the EU should take quantitatively into account the limitations of technological developments to cope, in environmental terms, with this intended growth.

2.3 Options

Apart from the “zero option” of not developing any new policy measures, the following main options were named in the WS presentations and discussions, beyond standardisation efforts:

 Harmonising public procurement procedures for data centres among EU Member States.

 Endorsing and promoting operational guides, such as the European Code-of-Conduct for Data Centres (EUCoCDC); the option to make the EUCoCDC mandatory for data centres in Europe (potentially including data Centres that offer data centre services in the EU market).

 Develop data centre-specific policy measures (voluntary or mandatory), based on existing basic KPIs (PUE etc.), on advanced KPIs that consider computational performance (e.g. DCeP, DPPE), and/ or that are life cycle based (e.g. under the European Commission’s Product Environmental Footprint (PEF)), building on and harmonising existing achievements by SDOs and private schemes.

(14)

2.4 Recommendations

 It was proposed to start with soft measures, e.g. in form of best-practice guides such as the EUCoCDC and self-commitments, and evaluate at a later stage if there is the need for additional policy, or not

 Availability tiers and security levels of the data centres need to be considered by policies

 Development of new uses of waste heat and other system integration aspects

 “Software improvement” – increase the usefulness of an internet search, reduce data duplication, better manage multiple/parallel requests, etc.

 Initial focus should be on the use phase, but shifting of environmental impacts to infrastructure and hardware production or end-of-life impacts needs to be at least monitored

 Bandwidth growth needs to be better linked to the ability of technological developments to cope with it in terms of the related energy consumption and environmental impacts

(15)

3 Is there a need of new metrics / harmonisation of

existing ones on the environmental impact of Data

Centres?

3.1 Current situation

The large variety of data centre energy and environmental KPIs can be usefully grouped into three types:

 Efficiency and effectiveness indicators (of the data centre or its components) during data centre operation, but not related to performance of data services and not life cycle based. For example the PUE, WUE, ….

 Performance-based indicators (of the data centre or its components), but not life-cycle based. For example DCeP, DPPE, ...

 Life cycle based performance-related indicators (of the data centre or its components). For example PEF, CF,….

Fig. 1 illustrates the scopes of these three types of KPIs.

Three different levels of KPI for data Centres and their scopes in dotted lines; note that the individual KPI may cover only a part or specific aspect of the potential scope.

Independent from the three types of KPIs that were identified above, a different logic is used by several SDOs:

 Technical KPIs that relate to the design and engineering phase for the components, sub-assemblies, products and systems to be employed in data centres.

 Objective KPIs that apply to the data centre infrastructures in the operational phase  Global KPIs that provide a different/wider view of a user’s commitment to strategic

(16)

Prepared by maki Consulting for the European Commission, DG CONNECT, Unit H5 10 Figure 1 gives an overview of standardisation achievements and ongoing efforts related to data centres, including on KPIs.

Figure 1 Overview of standardisation achievements and ongoing efforts related to data centres (prepared by Mike Gilmore of e-Ready Building).

In total, at least 50 KPIs have been developed and many of them tested, most of them of the first type of efficiency and effectiveness KPIs6. In some cases, different organisations have developed identical or very similar indicators under different names. A selection of these KPIs is documented and evaluated in the background report to this WS “KPIs for Green Data Centres”. Ongoing research projects (CoolEmAll, All4Green, Fit4Green, GAMES, RenewIT, GreenDataNet, Dolfin, GENiC, DC4Cities, GEYSER) evaluate, in parallel, subsets of the KPIs.

The Global Harmonization Taskforce, including the Japanese Green IT Promotion Council, the US Department of Energy, the Green Grid, and the European Commission's Joint Research Centre, has reached an agreement on Measurement Protocols for GEC, ERF, and CUE and continues the discussion of additional energy efficiency metrics.

IEC/ISO is establishing standards on data centre Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) and have in its queue for consideration: Carbon Usage Effectiveness (CUE), Renewable Energy Use (REF), IT Efficiency (ITEE), IT Utilization (ITEU), Water Usage Effectiveness (WUE), Energy

6

Among these are: PUE, WUE, CUE, CADE, DCIE, CPE, DCEP, THD, ERF, ERE, GEC, CEF, REF, GPUE, TUE, DCU, ScE, DCeE, DCPD, DCD, Swap, Useful Work, ProductivityDC, TPS/Watt, DH-UR, SI-POM, H-POM,

(17)

Prepared by maki Consulting for the European Commission, DG CONNECT, Unit H5 11 Reuse (ERE) aka Reuse of Waste Heat (RWH), and cooling efficiency, amongst others. On international level, currently only the PUE is subject to ongoing standardisation activity.

According to the widely shared view of the participants, almost exclusively one KPI is in wider practical use at data centres: the PUE. However, small data centres usually cannot calculate the PUE as they lack separate measurements of electricity consumption for IT and for other equipment. Often they do not even know about the PUE.

KPIs such as overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are sometimes used, with the need to get additional information on the GHG intensity of supplied electricity. Other indicators such as green energy use (GEC) and energy reuse outside the data centre (ERF) are sometimes used and communicated as well.

In some cases, particularly in Japan, performance-based KPIs are being developed and tested, such as the DPPE7. The Global Taskforce has recently recommended to start measuring the more advanced, performance-based indicator DCeP8.

Several SDOs and other initiatives have developed and/or coordinated life cycle based methods on ICT, such as ETSI, ITU, IEC, WRI/WBCSD, and The Green Grid. Work is planned moreover on developing Product Category Rules (PCR) for the environmental footprint of data centres. Linked to this foreseen PCR development is the ongoing pilot testing of the EC’s approach to Environmental footprinting, led by the European Commission’s DG Environment: one of these pilot projects that will develop PCR-like Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs) focuses on IT equipment and another one on UPS9.

3.2 Challenges/Discussion

Several participants expressed the view that most of the over 50 KPIs that were mentioned in the discussions would have limited or no value to help improving data centres operation and energy efficiency and as KPIs for measuring environmental performance for use e.g. in GPP.

Most of these indicators and particularly the PUE were widely seen by the participants as not being suitable for measuring environmental performance of data centres; they should not be used for comparisons. Similarly, FP7 research projects on data centres have found that Standardization should go beyond PUE and similar KPIs, and should include computational efficiency and other aspects.

The different business models for big data centres (see data centre types in chapter 2.2) pose moreover the challenge that the data centre operator may not have access to some of the information required to measure the data centre energy efficiency and may have no influence on the clients’ equipment and actual operation, hence can influence the environmental performance only to a limited degree.

7

Japan Green IT Promotion Council

8

Recommendation of the Global Taskforce from March 2014, to measure the Data Centre energy Productivity (DCeP) that relates energy consumption to useful work of data centres

(http://www.thegreengrid.org/~/media/Regulatory/HarmonizingGlobalMetricsforDataCenterEnergyEfficiency.pdf?la ng=en). The method had been developed by The Green Grid originally in 2008:

http://www.thegreengrid.org/Global/Content/white-papers/Framework-for-Data-Center-Energy-Productivity.

9

(18)

Prepared by maki Consulting for the European Commission, DG CONNECT, Unit H5 12 For green energy use (GEC) the necessity was expressed widely to avoid green-washing, both when using electricity that is “green” only on paper, and when promoting energy inefficient data centres with the misleading argument of using green energy. Additional demand for green energy by data centres was however argued to have had a beneficial effect, e.g. in France, where EDF would now be acquiring additional green energy. Intermittently available green energy such as wind power was however seen as an inherent challenge and the concern of selling the same green energy twice was expressed. Lack of public incentives to purchase green energy was mentioned as one shortcoming.

In first priority and in any case, the energy-efficiency of the data centre would be key, as is its overall energy consumption, a view commonly shared among the participants.

The risk was mentioned that not well designed or inappropriate KPIs lead to measures that serve KPI reporting rather than improving energy-efficiency, what needs to be avoided.

Despite of some coordination activities across SDOs, procedures and development cycles may still prevent the necessary full coordination and cooperation as was exemplified by one participant.

According to many participants, the selection of which KPIs to report or use has to be made in consideration also of the local relevance, e.g. where water is in shortage, the WUE would serve well, in other places the PUE may be better, etc. A combined approach should allow that the better or less good performances of a data centre in the different KPIs can compensate each other.

A widely expressed view was that the KPIs developed under CEN, CENELEC and ETSI, and monitored by the joint coordination group for Green Data Centres, may not be aggregated to an overall KPI and also individually not be used for comparisons among data centres (as also made explicit in ISO/IEC 30134-1), but serve exclusively as trend indicators to help improve the respective data centre operation. Other participants argued (in view of the weakness of these currently industry-favoured KPIs) for the need of more advanced KPIs, i.e. performance-based or life cycle based KPIs to overcome the inherent limitations.

Several participants stated that a commonly applicable and comparable KPI does not exist. It was suggested that very simple performance metrics such as the amount of data hosted and transferred to/from the client may be easier to measure and also more suitable than more complex metrics.

Some participants argued that most KPIs serve the data centre developer or operator, but less the user. It was also warned of KPIs that overlap with other efforts e.g. under EMS and CRC which would lead to double reporting or accountability.

It was stated and generally supported that it needs first to be defined what one wants to achieve and only then to select or develop the right indicator and define/standardise exactly what to measure and how and where. The large number of available KPIs hence needs to be filtered down along criteria including simplicity/practicality, scalability, worldwide applicability etc. to those that serve a specific purpose and do so well. Particularly the practicality was highlighted as important for uptake in practice. It should then be decided which body would take care of which KPI.

According to several participants, it would be important to first support the use or testing of existing KPIs before any further development.

It was generally supported that the different purposes of data centres and their different requirements on e.g. availability, security etc. affect the data centre efficiency and need

(19)

Prepared by maki Consulting for the European Commission, DG CONNECT, Unit H5 13 hence to be taken into account when defining or interpreting KPIs: a direct comparison necessitates to explicitly consider data centre availability and security level differences.

The computational performance or (useful) work of data centres was said to escape a generally applicable definition, while this widely shared opinion was questioned by several participants: the Global Taskforce has just recommended (March 2014) to measure the DCeP. They argued that the DCeP and the DPPE are indicators that work with this concept, have been tested, and that such approaches should be further pursued.

It was suggested by some participants to perform a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) when designing and building a data centre, but use other KPIs to manage them during data centre operation.

There was only limited support for the EC to play a role in further harmonisation or further development of KPIs or of life cycle based methods that were developed by the SDOs and private organisations. The need, in this context, to overcome the weaknesses of the currently available indicators and the insufficient reproducibility and hence comparability of the ICT- or data centre-specific life cycle based methods, was however raised by the participants and an active role of the EC supported to this end.

3.3 Options

The following options were addressed:

 Standardisation of KPIs in IEC, CENELEC, ETSI, and/or ITU

 Private initiatives, such as The green grid, WRI/WBCSD GHG protocol, … to advance KPIs and methods

 Research initiatives on sustainable data centres, collaborating on advancing or developing KPIs (methodology) to measure the results or progress

 The possible role of the EC in the development of KPIs and methods and/or their harmonisation

3.4 Recommendations

 First, what one wants to achieve needs to be defined and then the large number of available KPIs need to be filtered down along criteria including simplicity/practicality, scalability, worldwide applicability etc.

 According to several participants, it would be important to first support the use or testing of existing KPIs before any further development

 Data centre aspects such as purpose, availability, security etc. need to be taken into account when interpreting KPIs

(20)

Prepared by maki Consulting for the European Commission, DG CONNECT, Unit H5 14  Performance-based or life cycle based KPIs might be needed to overcome the inherent limitations of KPIs under consideration and harmonisation by the SDOs, according to several participants10

 It was suggested by some participants to perform a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) when designing and building a data centre, but use other KPIs to manage them during data centre operation

10

Current development support this view: The Global Taskforce has just recommended (March 2014) to measure the performance-based DCeP

(21)

4 Should the Data Centre, in the context of

environmental policy measures / methodologies /

metrics, be approached as a system or should it be

approached as its individual components?

4.1 Current situation

While the available methodologies, guides, metrics and KPIs cover the whole range from single components through the main layers / functional units to the entire data centre as a system, policy measures relate to only a few components and to the buildings in general, none on the data centre as a system or to data centre services (with the exception of the EU ETS for a few very large facilities).

4.2 Challenges/Discussion

The data centre provides its services as a system. It was commonly agreed that data centres are complex systems and their overall performance must be improved, even including interrelations with the data centre surroundings, such as use of waste heat. The different types of data centres, with different organisations being in control of the computational equipment and the operation for some types, need to be considered when compiling data and information for an analysis and when identifying improvement options.

Improvement measures on the ground are seen by most participants to be effectively guided by the EUCoCDC, which deals with the various data centre components, aiming at an overall energetic and environmental improvement. This overall improvement was expressed by the participants as the overall aim, yet no comprehensive and practice-tested overall metric or policy is available, so far.

The necessity to focus more on the actual operation of the data centre (as opposed to e.g. the data centre design) was highlighted. Another item of relevance is the necessity to consider seasonal differences and peak situations e.g. in cooling, i.e. to capture the overall situation and operation.

Data centres in cities (and in large industrial sites) were argued to have the advantage of better possibilities to use the waste heat, e.g. for office heating, also have better cable access, allow better security measures (while backups are being kept physically far away). It was disputed among the participants, whether or not big data centres would still be built in cities, but data centres in cities including their interactions with the surroundings, were positively discussed as options to improve system performance.

The majority of participants, however, did also favour to continue adopting measures on component level, e.g. by following the EUCoCDC recommendations.

Internal monitoring and management would use mainly KPIs for components/parts of the data centre, while external monitoring and reporting would be more useful regarding the overall energy consumption of the data centre and its overall KPIs such as e.g. the PUE or more advanced, performance-based KPIs.

(22)

4.3 Options

Implicitly, the following two options were addressed in the workshop:

 Improving/selecting/regulating/monitoring single components according to their environmental performance.

 Improving/selecting/regulating/monitoring the data centre as a whole and its services according to their environmental performance.

4.4 Recommendations

 Data centres should be treated as systems including the interactions with their surroundings

 Continue adopting measures on component level

 Internal management of data centre operation should be based on component-level KPIs

(23)

5 References

 ASTAP Working Group on ICT and Climate Change (2011): APT Report on Introduction to Green ICT Activities.

 Data Centre Alliance (2013): DCA Certification of Data Centres – Standard V1.0, 01 March 2013.

 ETSI GS OEU 001, v. 1.1.1 “Operational energy Efficiency for Users (OEU); Technical Global KPIs for Data Centres”.

http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/OEU/001_099/001/01.01.01_60/gs_oeu001v0101 01p.pdf.

 ETSI TS 103 199 "Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of ICT equipment, networks and services; General methodology and common requirements" methodology.

 European Commission (2010): Communication from the Commission. EUROPE 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. (COM(2010) 2020 final) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:2020:FIN:EN:PDF.

 European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and

Sustainability (2010): International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance. First edition March 2010. EUR 24708 EN. Luxembourg. Publications Office of the European Union; 2010.

 European Commission (2011): Towards A European Roadmap for Data centres and their Economic and Environmental Impact.

 European Commission (2013): Building the Single Market for Green Products Facilitating better information on the environmental performance of products and organisations. COM(2013) 196 final.

 European Commission (2013): COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations. (2013/179/EU).

 European Commission, DG Environment (2014): Guidance for the implementation of the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) during the Environmental Footprint (EF) pilot phase. Version 4.0.

 Guohui Wang T. S. Eugene Ng (2011): The Impact of Virtualization on Network Performance of Amazon EC2 Data Centre.

 Huston Eubank, Joel Swisher, Cameron Burns, Jen Seal, and Ben Emerson (2003): Design Recommendations for High-Performance Data Centres: Report of the Integrated Design Charrette.

 IEC/TR 62725 "Quantification methodology of greenhouse gas emissions (CO2e) for electrical and electronic products and systems".

 Institute for Energy and Transport (IET), JRC, EC (2014): Best Practices for the EU Code of Conduct on Data Centres. Version 5.1.1.

 Institute for Energy and Transport (IET), JRC, EC (2014): European Code of Conduct on Data Centre Energy Efficiency. Introductory guide for applicants. Version 2.0.3.

(24)

Prepared by maki Consulting for the European Commission, DG CONNECT, Unit H5 18  ITU-T L.1300 “Best practices for green data centres”.

 ITU-T Rec. L.1410 “Methodology for environmental impact assessment of information and communication technologies (ICT) goods, networks and services.

 Jonathan Koomey. 2011. Growth in Data center electricity use 2005 to 2010. Oakland, CA: Analytics Press. August 1. http://www.analyticspress.com/datacenters.html.  Kristina Welch (2011): Assessing the Business Case for Data Centre Relocations.

 Lawrence Berkeley (2003): HIGH-PERFORMANCE DATA CENTRES: 10-Year Research Plan For Data Centre Buildings.

 Marc-Andree Wolf (2013): KPIs for Green Data Centres. Background paper for

stakeholder engagement and a workshop. Unpublished report by maki Consulting for EC, DG CONNECT.

 PG & E (2006): HIGH PERFORMANCE DATA CENTRES: A design Guidelines Sources book.  The global taskforce (2012): Harmonizing Global Metrics for Data Centre Energy

Efficiency.

 The green grid (2008): White paper: A framework for Data Centre Energy Productivity. http://www.thegreengrid.org/Global/Content/white-papers/Framework-for-Data-Center-Energy-Productivity.

 The green grid (2012): Data Centre Life Cycle Assessment Guidelines. White paper No 45, v2.

 Green IT Promotion Council (2012): New Data Center Energy Efficiency Evaluation Index DPPE (Datacenter Performance per Energy) Measurement Guidelines (Ver 2.05)

(25)

Prepared by maki Consulting for the European Commission, DG CONNECT, Unit H5 19  Annex I: Acronyms

CCL Climate Change Levy on UK industry

CEN European Committee for Standardization

CENELEC European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization

CF Carbon Footprint

CLC referring to CENELEC in Standards identifiers

CUE Carbon Usage Effectiveness

CRC Carbon Reduction Commitment in the UK

DC Data Centre

DCeP, DCP Data Centre energy Productivity

DCiE Data Centre infrastructure Efficiency

DCMM Data Centre Maturity Model (by The Green Grid)

DG CONNECT Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content & Technology

DPPE Data centre Performance Per Energy

EC European Commission

EMS Environmental Management System

EN voluntary European Standards

ERF Energy Reuse Factor (= KPIREUSE)

ESO European Standards Organization (i.e. CEN, CENELEC and ETSI)

ETS Emissions Trading System

ETSI European Telecommunications Standards Institute

EU European Union

EU2020 EUROPE 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Communication from the Commission.

EUCoCDC European Code of Conduct on Data Centre Energy Efficiency

FP7 7th Research Framework Programme of the European Commission

GEC Green Energy Coefficient (= KPIREN)

GHG Greenhouse Gases

GPP Green Public Procurement

H2020 Horizon 2020 Research Programme of the European Commission

ICT Information and Communication Technology

IEC International Electrotechnical Commission

IM Implementing Measure (under the EU Ecodesign Directive on energy-using

(26)

IoT Internet of Things

ISO International Organization for Standardization

ITEE IT Equipment Efficiency

ITEU IT Equipment Utilization

ITU-T International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication

standardization sector

KPI environmental Key Performance Indicator

KPIEC Energy Consumption

KPIREN Renewable Energy Use (= GEC)

KPIREUSE Energy reuse (= ERF)

KPITE Task Efficiency (= PUE)

PCR Product Category Rule

PEF Product Environmental Footprint

PEFCR Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules

PUE Power Usage Effectiveness (= KPITE)

SDO Standards Development Organization

TR Technical Report (published by an SDO)

UPS Uninterruptible Power Supply

WF Water Footprint

WRI/WBCSD World Resources Institute / World Business Council on Sustainable Development (a joint private initiative of these two organisations working on guidance and other documents)

(27)

6 Annex II: Agenda

Workshop

„Green Data Centres: Policy measures, metrics and methodologies“ 1st April 2014, BU25 Room 0/S 9, Avenue du Beaulieu 25, B-1160 Brussels

Agenda

09:30 Registration, coffee

10:00 Welcome, introduction, setting the scene, practical organisation (DG CONNECT) 10:40 KPIs for Green Data Centres (Marc-Andree Wolf, maki Consulting)

11:00 Data centre definitions, business models and resource efficiency metrics (Mike Gilmore, e-Ready Building Ltd. and reporting on data centre standardisation bodies) 11:15 The real use of KPI and Metrics operating a large data centre (Marcel Ledergerber,

CreditSuisse AG)

11:30 European Standardization Landscape for the energy management and environmental viability of data Centres (Andre Rouyer, The Green Grid and for the CEN-CENELEC-ETSI Joint Coordination Group on Green Data Centres)

11:45 Energy Management & Sustainable ICT (Jean-Marc Alberola, Airbus Industries)

12:00 FP7 Projects: Cluster collaboration on Data Center Metrics (Fabrice Roudet, EATON / GreenDataNet)

12:15 Coffee break

12:30 Open discussion

13:15 Lunch

14:00 Plenary open discussion

16:15 Coffee break

16:30 Short presentation and discussion on H2020-EE8-2014-3-MarketUptake - Public procurement of innovative sustainable energy solutions (DG CONNECT)

16:45 Wrap-up of afternoon session and of the day (DG CONNECT)

(28)

7 Annex III: Participants

Participants:

 Andre Rouyer – The Green Grid *  Bob Crooks – UK Defra / BCS

 Christophe Garnier – Schneider Electric  Dania Cristofaro – ECOS

 Dominique Roche – Orange

 Fabrice Roudet – EATON / FP7 GreenDataNet Cluster *  Henry Wong – Intel

 Ian F. Bitterlin – Emerson Network Power  Jean-Marc Alberola – Airbus Industry *  Jim Hathaway – Verne Global

 João Marinho – Hitachi  Lex Coors – Interxion

 Marc-Andree Wolf – maki Consulting *, **  Marcel Ledergerber – Credit Suisse AG *  Martin Essig – TelecityGroup

 Mike Gilmore – e-Ready Building *, ***  Paolo Gemma – Huawei

 Simon Campbell-Whyte – Data Centre Alliance  Tom Misaki – NRI / GIPC

For the EC, DG CONNECT:  Svetoslav Mihaylov (Co-chair) *  Kyriakos Baxevanidis (Co-chair)  Merce Griera I Fisa *

 Gaelle Le Gars  Cristobal Irazoqui _________________ * Presenter ** Rapporteur *** Additional reporting