MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024277001 · doi:10.1145/2642708

A Survey on Green-Energy-Aware Power Management for Datacenters

2014· review· en· W2024277001 on OpenAlexafffund
Fanxin Kong, Xue Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceRenewable energyData centerGreen computingElectricityEfficient energy useSmart gridWorkloadEnvironmental economicsEnergy managementCloud computingEnergy (signal processing)Computer networkElectrical engineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Megawatt-scale datacenters have emerged to meet the increasing demand for IT applications and services. The hunger for power brings large electricity bills to datacenter operators and causes significant impacts to the environment. To reduce costs and environmental impacts, modern datacenters, such as those of Google and Apple, are beginning to integrate renewable or green energy sources into their power supply. This article investigates the green-energy-aware power management problem for these datacenters and surveys and classifies works that explicitly consider renewable energy and/or carbon emission. Our aim is to give a full view of this problem. Hence, we first provide some basic knowledge on datacenters (including datacenter components, power infrastructure, power load estimation, and energy sources' operations), the electrical grid (including dynamic pricing, power outages, and emission factor), and the carbon market (including cap-and-trade and carbon tax). Then, we categorize existing research works according to their basic approaches used, including workload scheduling, virtual machine management, and energy capacity planning. Each category's discussion includes the description of the shared core idea, qualitative analysis, and quantitative analysis among works of this category.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations146
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Computing SurveysSame topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207