WSU Energy Program Logo
Bonneville Power Administration Logo
  • Home
  • About
  • Database
      • Browse
      • Energy Systems
        • Building Envelope
        • Electronics
        • HVAC
        • Irrigation
        • Lighting
        • Motors & Drives
        • Multiple Energy Systems
        • Power Systems
        • Process Loads & Appliances
        • Refrigeration
        • Transportation
        • Water Heating
      • Sector
        • Agricultural
        • Commercial
        • Industrial
        • Residential
        • Utility
  • TAG Portal
      • 2017 Residential Lighting TAG (#14)
      • 2016 Multifamily Building TAG (#13)
      • 2015-1 Commercial HVAC TAG (#11)
      • 2014 Residential Building TAG (#10)
      • 2014 Commercial Building TAG (#9)
      • 2013 Information Technology TAG (#8)
      • 2013 ALCS TAG (#7)
      • 2012 Smart Thermostat TAG (#6)
      • 2012 LED Lighting TAG (#5)
      • 2011 Energy Management TAG (#4)
      • 2010 HVAC TAG (#3)
      • 2009 HVAC TAG (#2)
      • 2009 Lighting TAG (#1)
  • Webinars
    • Webinar Archives
  • Glossary
>

Summary

SAN (Storage Area Network) and LAN (Local Area Network) Convergence

Data Management: Converged Storage Area Network and Local Area Networks vs. Conventional Data Storage Networks

A data center network system that reduces the number and size of distributed rack-based switching hardware and services into smaller, higher bandwidth machines with associated consolidated cabling systems.

Synopsis:

Storage area networks (SANs) connect servers to storage devices with switches directing which server connects to which storage device, and when. Local area networks (LANs) connect servers to other devices, including other servers, intranets and the Internet, using different switches. Merging these two systems reduces cabling and switches. Copper cables can be replaced with fiber optic cables to improve speed and energy efficiency. With virtualized servers and storage now capable of much greater throughput than previously, and the increasing complexity of communications, there was a need for new approaches. SAN and LAN convergence, or consolidation, is a new approach requiring new communication protocols, switches, and other communication equipment.

Approaches as of late 2013 use new communications protocols such as Fibre Channel and internet small computer system interface (iSCSI) that requires fewer connections and switches. Switches can be consolidated to be used for both communication from servers via Ethernet to intranets and the Internet, and to access storage via SANs. The new systems are faster and more efficient, using less than half the energy of legacy systems. Throughput speeds are often up to 10 Gbps (gigabit per second) (most network and data center systems still operate on one Gbps). Since these systems actually use less equipment, the cost of deployment is often less than replacing the legacy systems, which usually need to be replaced every other server refresh, or about every four to ten years. Because of automation and streamlining of deployment, the time of deployment can also be reduced, making this a win-win solution with an immediate payback.

Energy Savings: 56%
Energy Savings Rating: Limited Assessment  What's this?
LevelStatusDescription
1Concept not validatedClaims of energy savings may not be credible due to lack of documentation or validation by unbiased experts.
2Concept validated:An unbiased expert has validated efficiency concepts through technical review and calculations based on engineering principles.
3Limited assessmentAn unbiased expert has measured technology characteristics and factors of energy use through one or more tests in typical applications with a clear baseline.
4Extensive assessmentAdditional testing in relevant applications and environments has increased knowledge of performance across a broad range of products, applications, and system conditions.
5Comprehensive analysisResults of lab and field tests have been used to develop methods for reliable prediction of performance across the range of intended applications.
6Approved measureProtocols for technology application are established and approved.
Simple Payback, New Construction (years): -18.2   What's this?
Simple Payback, Retrofit (years): 70.5   What's this?

Simple Payback is one tool used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a proposed investment, such as the investment in an energy efficient technology. Simple payback indicates how many years it will take for the initial investment to "pay itself back." The basic formula for calculating a simple payback is:

Simple Payback = Incremental First Cost / Annual Savings

The Incremental Cost is determined by subtracting the Baseline First Cost from the Measure First Cost.

For New Construction, the Baseline First Cost is the cost to purchase the standard practice technology. The Measure First Cost is the cost of the alternative, more energy efficienct technology. Installation costs are not included, as it is assumed that installation costs are approximately the same for the Baseline and the Emerging Technology.

For Retrofit scenarios, the Baseline First Cost is $0, since the baseline scenario is to leave the existing equipment in place. The Emerging Technology First Cost is the Measure First Cost plus Installation Cost (the cost of the replacement technology, plus the labor cost to install it). Retrofit scenarios generally have a higher First Cost and longer Simple Paybacks than New Construction scenarios.

Simple Paybacks are called "simple" because they do not include details such as the time value of money or inflation, and often do not include operations and maintenance (O&M) costs or end-of-life disposal costs. However, they can still provide a powerful tool for a quick assessment of a proposed measure. These paybacks are rough estimates based upon best available data, and should be treated with caution. For major financial decisions, it is suggested that a full Lifecycle Cost Analysis be performed which includes the unique details of your situation.

The energy savings estimates are based upon an electric rate of $.09/kWh, and are calculated by comparing the range of estimated energy savings to the baseline energy use. For most technologies, this results in "Typical," "Fast" and "Slow" payback estimates, corresponding with the "Typical," "High" and "Low" estimates of energy savings, respectively.

TAG Technical Score:  2.14

Status:

Details

SAN (Storage Area Network) and LAN (Local Area Network) Convergence

Data Management: Converged Storage Area Network and Local Area Networks vs. Conventional Data Storage Networks

A data center network system that reduces the number and size of distributed rack-based switching hardware and services into smaller, higher bandwidth machines with associated consolidated cabling systems.
Item ID: 509
Sector: Commercial, Industrial
Energy System: Electronics--Information Technology
Technical Advisory Group: 2013 Information Technology TAG (#8)
Average TAG Rating: 3.36 out of 5
TAG Ranking Date: 10/25/2013
TAG Rating Commentary:
  1. Consolidation and refresh to new equipment will result in savings - not emerging, hard to justify utility spending to support this
  2. This 100% is not an ET.

 

Synopsis:

Storage area networks (SANs) connect servers to storage devices with switches directing which server connects to which storage device, and when. Local area networks (LANs) connect servers to other devices, including other servers, intranets and the Internet, using different switches. Merging these two systems reduces cabling and switches. Copper cables can be replaced with fiber optic cables to improve speed and energy efficiency. With virtualized servers and storage now capable of much greater throughput than previously, and the increasing complexity of communications, there was a need for new approaches. SAN and LAN convergence, or consolidation, is a new approach requiring new communication protocols, switches, and other communication equipment.

Approaches as of late 2013 use new communications protocols such as Fibre Channel and internet small computer system interface (iSCSI) that requires fewer connections and switches. Switches can be consolidated to be used for both communication from servers via Ethernet to intranets and the Internet, and to access storage via SANs. The new systems are faster and more efficient, using less than half the energy of legacy systems. Throughput speeds are often up to 10 Gbps (gigabit per second) (most network and data center systems still operate on one Gbps). Since these systems actually use less equipment, the cost of deployment is often less than replacing the legacy systems, which usually need to be replaced every other server refresh, or about every four to ten years. Because of automation and streamlining of deployment, the time of deployment can also be reduced, making this a win-win solution with an immediate payback.

Baseline Example:

Baseline Description: Two 1500W switches in a data center network with full standard LAN and SAN network cabling
Baseline Energy Use: 26280 kWh per year per unit

Comments:

This "unit" of two 1500W legacy switches was used because it is the example in the case study used for calculating energy savings in a "composite" case study analysis performed by Forrester Consulting (Speyer, 2013 Pg 14-15).

Manufacturer's Energy Savings Claims:

"Typical" Savings: 56%
Savings Range: From 50% to 80%

Comments:

Manufacturers typically do not make specific energy savings claims, but Brocade Communications Systems commissioned a study titled "The Total Economic Impact of Brocade VCS Fabric Technology" that included energy impacts, that they no doubt use in their marketing (Speyer, 2013 Pg 14-15). This is based on a three-year cycle in a large data center, with investment in new equipment each year. Here are their results:

Metric  Calculation  Year 1  Year 2  Year 3  Total 
Average power
consumption for previous
backbone switches (W)
 2*1,500W  3,000  3,000  3,000  9,000
Power consumption of
Brocade infrastructure (W)
(Total of all VDX switches)*330W  990  1,320  1,650  3,960
Reduction in power draw (W)  G1-G2  2,010  1,680  1,350  5,040
Operating hours per year  365*24  8,760  8,760  8,760  26,280
Annual reduction in data
center switch energy
consumption (kWh)
 G3*G4/1,000  17,608  14,717  11,826  44,151

Note that these savings do not include HVAC and other infrastructure savings, so the actual savings would be higher.
Best Estimate of Energy Savings:

"Typical" Savings: 56%
Low and High Energy Savings: 50% to 80%
Energy Savings Reliability: 3 - Limited Assessment

Comments:

Brocade Communications Systems commissioned a study performed by Forrester Consulting titled "The Total Economic Impact of Brocade VCS Fabric Technology" that included energy impacts, that they no doubt use in their marketing (Speyer, 2013 Pg 14-15). This is based on a three-year cycle in a large data center, with investment in new equipment each year. They did a case study of four different data centers. Rather than publishing the results of each or simply taking "averages," they compiled a profile of what they considered to be a "composite" data center based on the results of all four data centers. Here are their results:

Metric  Calculation  Year 1  Year 2  Year 3  Total 
Average power
consumption for previous
backbone switches (W)
 2*1,500W  3,000  3,000  3,000  9,000
Power consumption of
Brocade infrastructure (W)
(Total of all VDX switches)*330W  990  1,320  1,650  3,960
Reduction in power draw (W)  G1-G2  2,010  1,680  1,350  5,040
Operating hours per year  365*24  8,760  8,760  8,760  26,280
Annual reduction in data
center switch energy
consumption (kWh)
 G3*G4/1,000  17,608  14,717  11,826  44,151

Note that these savings do not include HVAC and other infrastructure savings, so the actual savings would be higher. Using the standard Power Use Effectiveness (PUE) of 2.6 used for E3T analyses, assuming that HVAC is about 54% of energy use, UPS losses are about 6%, and that reduced losses in these loads will not be linear with IT savings, the actual savings kWh in such a data center could be as high as double the IT savings. However, with this example being in a large data center, the infrastructure energy may be a much lower percentage of energy use than our assumption (PUEs as low as 1.05), and interactive effects may not be as much as this, so it is more conservative to not consider the extra savings.
Energy Use of Emerging Technology:
11,563.2 kWh per unit per year What's this?

Energy Use of an Emerging Technology is based upon the following algorithm.

Baseline Energy Use - (Baseline Energy Use * Best Estimate of Energy Savings (either Typical savings OR the high range of savings.))

Technical Potential:
Units: unit
Currently no data available.
First Cost:

Installed first cost per: unit
Emerging Technology Unit Cost (Equipment Only): $80550.00
Emerging Technology Installation Cost (Labor, Disposal, Etc.): $12863.00
Baseline Technology Unit Cost (Equipment Only): $104700.00

Comments:

Based on the "composite" example from the Forrester study used by E3T for payback calculations (see Best Estimate of Energy Savings), the cost of deployment during a normal refresh is actually less than just replacing the legacy equipment. It requires fewer switches and less cabling. In addition, even with IT managers and staff needing to learn a new system, deployment of the new system is simpler and even the first time can go quicker than replacing the legacy system. Second and subsequent replacements should go even more smoothly and thus be even more cost-effective. (Speyer, 2013)

As a retrofit, though, labor costs do need to be considered. The Forrester study breaks the costs down in their composite company installation costs out over the first three years. The total for hardware and software support and switch deployment (Pgs. 11-12) totals $36,383 (not including maintenance).

Cost Effectiveness:

Simple payback, new construction (years): -18.2

Simple payback, retrofit (years): 70.5

What's this?

Cost Effectiveness is calculated using baseline energy use, best estimate of typical energy savings, and first cost. It does not account for factors such as impacts on O&M costs (which could be significant if product life is greatly extended) or savings of non-electric fuels such as natural gas. Actual overall cost effectiveness could be significantly different based on these other factors.

Comments:

The best time to do this retrofit is during a routine equipment refresh. Servers are often switched out or "refreshed" every two to five years. Switches and cabling is customarily refreshed every other server refresh, or about every four to ten years. If the change is made before a normal refresh is scheduled, then the payback will be different, but not really 70 years, since equipment will be refreshed long before that. Figuring out an exact payback is not trivial, but it will be approximately pro-rated by the time within the normal refresh cycle. In other words, if a normal refresh cycle is six years, but an IT manager chooses to do the change at three years, and the calculated payback is 70 years as in this example, your actual payback for the abbreviated refresh cycle would be 3/6 * 70 years = 35 years.

Detailed Description:

This technology continues to evolve as of this writing, and includes within its definition several approaches to simplify, converge (e.g., consolidate), and speed up the network within an IT network, especially within the data center. This usually involves actually reducing the amount of equipment needed, and in its ideal rendition, reduces the cost of implementation versus replacing the legacy technology, making it an emerging technology with an immediate payback.

One of the main goals in implementing this technology is often to increase bandwidth in the network within the data center, increasing data throughput to match the improvements in processing speed by current virtualized servers. The current desired speed of connections is typically up to 10 Gbps (gigabits per second).

The key component to this technology is converging the SAN and LAN switches. Conventionally, one set of switches manages communication between the servers and the Ethernet LAN, and another set manages communication between the servers and the SAN. A converged switch can handle both communications. This reduces the switches, ports, and interconnections required (Seger, 2013 Pg 38-40). To achieve the desired throughput, as well as saving energy at each connection, fiber optic cables are often installed. A typical copper port takes 2 to 4 watts to operate, depending on the length of the cable, compared to fiber optic port at 0.7W, so each connection saves a significant percentage of the energy, as well as increasing the bandwidth. Additional energy is saved by having fewer connections on the network. These ports typically operate nearly continuously.

One example of re-cabling is shown in the TAG presentation (Seger, 2013 Pg 38-40). In that example, a legacy network has these connections:
-  Ethernet LAN Copper = 8 ports = 24W (assume 3W per port)
-  Ethernet LAN fiber optic = 8 ports = 8W
-  SAN = 16 Fibre Channel ports = 16W
-  Total power (Ports only) = 48W

With the redesigned network, with converged switches:
-  Ethernet LAN fiber optic = 8 ports = 8W
-  FCoE (Fibre Channel over Ethernet) -- 4 ports = 4W
-  SAN = 4 Fibre Channel ports = 4W
-  Total power (Ports only) = 24W

Note that this is assuming a conservative assumption of one watt per fiber optic port, whereas the actual draw is more like 0.7W.

Another key component to this approach is the communication protocol. Communicating properly with these new switches requires new communications protocol. Instead of using the traditional Internet Protocol (IP), these systems use Fibre Channel over Internet Protocol (FCIP) or Internet Small Computer System Interface (iSCSI). Other data access protocols are Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) and Fibre Connection (FICON). File access is often provided using Network File System (NFS) or Common Internet File System (CIFS) protocols (Wikipedia, 2013). These protocols allow much more efficient communication between the SANs and the servers, and particularly allow the data storage to be location-independent, to take full advantage of virtual storage technologies.

Depending on what is replaced, sometimes a bridging technology or protocol is required to communicate between new equipment and remaining legacy equipment. FCoE (Fibre Channel over Ethernet) is an example of a protocol that can help bridge that gap.

Lastly, the high-bandwidth, low-power connections are best achieved by using fiber optic cables.

The main manufacturers of these converging systems, including switches, software, and communication protocol, are Brocade Communications Systems and Cisco Systems, Inc. Many other manufacturers package these as their own equipment, but most of it is actually manufactured by these two companies.

Taking this integrated data solution concept one step further is the idea of fully integrating the full data system, including servers. One advantage of this is that it can take a lot less time for IT managers to plan and implement a fully integrated solution, and they only have one vendor to go to for service if something goes wrong. A full description of this approach and the many advantages can be found in an International Data Corporation (DC) article: (Villars, 2012). Though this was published by the IDC, it is sponsored by VCE, the manufacturer of the system featured, so take that into account. They do not mention energy savings, but do mention reduced infrastructure costs, faster deployment time, and increased IT staff and end-user productivity. They claim there's significantly less equipment; they decreased storage by 60%, network hardware by 63%, servers by 41%, facilities by 33%, and reduced power by 25%.

Product Information:
Cisco, Various Switches Brocade, VCS Fabric Technology

Standard Practice:

Standard practice is for each server to have its own on-board storage, known as Direct Attached Storage (DAS), and for the server to connect to terminals, networks, and the Internet through local area networks (LANs). Now many data centers are going to SANs for storage to use data storage much more effectively, rather than having each server have its own storage. This saves on equipment and makes much more efficient use of the storage. The connections between the servers and the SANs is most commonly now, at least in larger data centers, a Fibre Channel (FC) connection using fiber optics technology. Thus, the servers connect separately to the SAN through FC connections and to the rest of their network through standard copper-based Ethernet LAN connections.

Development Status:

Many solutions for this are readily available commercially, though the field is still in development and different companies have different solutions. Also, there may be more to come in the future, perhaps with even more efficient solutions.

Non-Energy Benefits:

Mostly this technology is not deployed specifically to save energy. The energy saved is significant, percentage-wise, but not cost-effective enough to justify on an energy basis alone unless it is done at the time of other planned upgrades. Replacement cycles happen every 2-5 years, typically, in data centers, so usually the upgrade can easily wait until the next server or other equipment upgrade. Rather, it is being deployed to improve performance of the system, and reduce the cables, ports, and switches needed to operate the network. This simplifies deployment and sometimes can save costs. Often in large data centers, the cost of installation and sometimes the management time involved in making the change will actually be less than replacing the legacy technology (Speyer, 2013). In this case, the technology provides an immediate payback.

End User Drawbacks:

With most emerging technologies, a major drawback is first cost. In this case, in appropriate applications, SAN and LAN convergence can lead to lower first costs. It does, typically, though, increase the cost of planning and deploying a new network protocol, and potential down-time to make the changes, since this method of management will likely be unfamiliar to the IT managers. Despite this, some fully integrated systems claim to actually reduce deployment and planning time (Villars, 2012). In any case, retraining of IT staff will likely be required. In addition, servers and SANs will typically not already have Converged Network Adapters (CNAs). In many cases, bridge technology must be used to connect legacy equipment with the new networks. Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) protocol can help bridge these technologies.

Operations and Maintenance Costs:

Baseline Cost: $17450.00 per: unit per year
Emerging Technology Cost: $13425.00 per: unit per year

Comments:

Maintenance costs for a network are difficult to estimate and typically are low. However, whatever maintenance there is should be less for a converged network system, since there are fewer switches, ports, and cables. Most of this cost is software and technical support to keep the network operating effectively. However, any of these costs will be dwarfed by the replacement costs of the equipment. Since these have a short effective life -- typically two "server refresh cycles," or about every six years, we include the cost of equipment replacement as an O&M expense. Using the figures from the Forrester study that have been used throughout (Speyer, 2013), dividing the first cost of the baseline and converged equipment by six gives the annual replacement costs quoted.

Effective Life:

Anticipated Lifespan of Emerging Technology: 6 years

Comments:

This technology involves a number of components, each of which has a different life expectancy.

Competing Technologies:

Because the definition of this emerging technology is general enough to include several approaches to simplifying and "converging" or consolidating IT networks, any competing technologies would likely be included within the umbrella of this technology. As of this writing, there are no competing technologies known that would not fit within this technology.

Reference and Citations:

Michael Speyer, 3/1/2013. The Total Economic Impact Of Brocade VCS Fabric Technology
Forrester Research, Inc.
Special Notes: Based on a large data center that is a built "composite" based on interviews with four large data centers who recently adopted this technology. Energy impact on pages 14-15.

Richard Villars, 5/1/2012. Converging the Datacenter Infrastructure: Why, How, So What?
VCE
Special Notes: This describes even one step further in integration, integrating the virtualized servers with the virtualized data storage and converged network infrastructure.

Wikipedia, 11/18/2013. Storage Virtualization
Wikipedia

Wikipedia, 11/18/2013. Storage Area Networks
Wikipedia

Muhammad Saleem, 2013. Simplify the Data Center Network and Optimize Operations with LAN and SAN Convergence
Dell

John Seger, 11/20/2013. Information Technology and Data Centers (Webinar 1)
WSU Energy Program
Special Notes: Webinar presentation to the 2013 E3T IT TAG on top energy saving emerging IT technologies by three members of the TAG. The section on SAN and LAN convergence was presented by John Seger, slides 33 to 42.

Rank & Scores

SAN (Storage Area Network) and LAN (Local Area Network) Convergence

2013 Information Technology TAG (#8)


Technical Advisory Group: 2013 Information Technology TAG (#8)
TAG Ranking: 8 out of 57
Average TAG Rating: 3.36 out of 5
TAG Ranking Date: 10/25/2013
TAG Rating Commentary:

  1. Consolidation and refresh to new equipment will result in savings - not emerging, hard to justify utility spending to support this
  2. This 100% is not an ET.

 



Technical Score Details

TAG Technical Score: 2.1 out of 5

How significant and reliable are the energy savings?
Energy Savings Score: 1.9 Comments:

  • I don't know what the savings potential is
  • Will result in a large reduction in equipment in the DC, but this is one or two generations (turns) out for most smaller DC's
  • Savings look excellent for new construction or equipment replacement.
  • IT equipment tends to operate at very stable levels of power consumption.
  • Could be very good, though I wonder what variety there is in the equipment universe. I expect it would be quite difficult to design a prescriptive rebate program for this measure.
  • Seems to overlap with consolidation and virtualization

How great are the non-energy advantages for adopting this technology?
Non-Energy Benefits Score: 2.1
Comments:

  • Conversion to fiber removes the need for large and heavy cabling and cable management trays and cleans up the under floor plenums.
  • This change seems like it will happen for technology reasons, not for energy efficiency reasons. Energy sounds like a side benefit of shifting to a different data center architecture.
  • If I understand correctly, doing this measure will result in lower first cost than replacing legacy equipment.
  • Hardware issues, capacity constraints and copper prices will probably drive this measure
  • Based on IT TAG work group presentations it appears that more consolidated networking infrastructure offers substantial operational benefits to IT staff.
  • I suspect that customers are moving in this direction solely for operational efficiencies and advantages, rather than for energy saving. Free-ridership could be a huge issue.
  • Reduced footprint, power and cost

How ready are product and provider to scale up for widespread use in the Pacific Northwest?
Technology Readiness Score: 1.9
Comments:

  • Most switch hardware vendors already offering a full suite of products.
  • I don't know, but I've got to answer the question, so I suppose I'll be cautious.

How easy is it to change to the proposed technology?
Ease of Adoption Score: 3.1
Comments:

  • Requires a switch refresh which is disruptive to older DC designs without redundancy.
  • It costs a lot to recable everything and buy new hardware.
  • Looks like it's readily done on upgrade. Out of the question for retrofit.
  • I don't think an energy incentive would drive this measure
  • Based on IT TAG presentations it appears that change will occur over time as expensive network components are upgraded and refreshed.
  • It's a pretty significant change to the fundamental communications system design in a DC environment.
  • Seems like a pretty complicated, major change

Considering all costs and all benefits, how good a purchase is this technology for the owner?
Value Score: 1.7
Comments:

  • Generally I don't know much about this opportunity.
  • Faster data rates for less total and less equipment to maintain/cool...
  • Doesn't get any better than zero first cost.
  • No cost benefit information presented to IT TAG. I don't know enough about this technology to thoroughly evaluate all costs / benefits.



Completed:
12/4/2013 3:57:52 PM
Last Edited:
12/4/2013 3:57:52 PM
Contact
Copyright 2023 Washington State University
disclaimer and privacy policies

Bonneville Power Administration Logo