Power Modeling for Effective Datacenter Planning and Compute Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, there has been a global growth in datacenter capacity, power consumption and the associated costs. Accurate mapping of datacenter resource usage (CPU, RAM, etc.) and hardware configurations (servers, accelerators, etc.) to its power consumption is necessary for efficient long-term infrastructure planning and real-time compute load management. This paper presents two types of statistical power models that relate CPU usage of Google’s Power Distribution Units (PDUs, commonly referred to as power domains) to their power consumption. The models are deployed in production and are used for cost- and carbon-aware load management, power provisioning and infrastructure rightsizing. They are simple, interpretable and exhibit uniformly high prediction accuracy in modeling power domains with large diversity of hardware configurations and workload types across Google fleet. A multi-year validation of the deployed models demonstrate that they can predict power with less than 5% Mean Absolute Percent Error (MAPE) for more than 95% diverse PDUs across Google fleet. This performance matches the best reported accuracies coming from studies that focus on specific workload types, hardware platforms and, typically, more complex statistical models.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".