Future Processor Architectures – Are Developers Affected?

Last month I read an excellent article in the May issue of Communications of the ACM (CACM) about the future direction of microprocessors. Shekhar Borkar and Andrew Chien’s argument is that energy efficiency is now the limiter of processor development and performance – simply adding cores at ever higher frequencies will lead to prohibitive power consumption. With an expectation of 150-million logic transistors by 2018 they further argue that it will not be feasible to simply replicate identical cores to achieve the performance gain of 30x predicted by the improvements seen over the last two decades. To deal with this issue they suggest that processor designers will instead provide multiple types of core which trade a combination of number, size and complexity against throughput.

In a related blog article at Dr. Dobb’s, Cameron and Tracey Hughes raise the question of transparency for software developers. They question whether they will be able to “write once and run everywhere” or will they need to get out the “Trick Bag” to explicitly deal with the potential variance from processor to processor, machine to machine.

The quick answer, I believe, is that the effect of availability and differences in cores will be felt by system programmers – those that create and maintain operating systems and compiler chains – first. Having said that I don’t believe there is actually an easy answer to the Hughes’ question as the CACM article, whilst being solidly grounded in the hardware aspects, does raise questions related to the software. This is especially true if it is not just the cores that differ, but that the established environment (for example, a flat coherent address space) changes.

The article’s “key insights” summary also talks about application-customised hardware but that, to me, has the implication that gains from multiple cores will only be apparent in specific fields. The aim of energy efficiency may not, in such a situation, translate, or at least achieve its full potential, in a wider market.

So we have lots of questions with no easy answers to any of them. Why is this?

Plug Computers

I have recently discovered the SheevaPlug a small form-factor fully functional Linux based computer. This is the way forward!

Your Body is the Interface …

I recently came across the following TED talk by Pranav Mistry about his SixthSense interface. The demonstrations show great potential for revolutionising the way we interact with mobile devices and computers in general.

Reading the various comments on sites that link to the video finds many people are engaged and excited by this form of interaction, whilst others knock the video as being blatantly edited together and not a real demonstration of a product. To my mind it is the concept that is important and even if some of the interactions have been artificially created, the vision is likely to become a reality for many of them.

Is Climategate the Death Knell for Green IT?

The recent leaking of emails and code from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has kicked off many discussions about climate change and specifically whether it really is man-made. This disclosure coming, as it does, to coincide with the Copenhagen Summit is likely to be downplayed by politicians and the IPCC as it stands to undermine everything they hope to achieve. After all, if there turns out to be no foundation to mankind exacerbating the climatic change then there will be no need for Global economic measures nor for Governments to impose taxes or levies based on CO₂ emissions.

Is this, therefore, the end for Green movements and more specifically for Green IT?

Scammers See The Green Potential

Every day brings more stories of people that have downloaded the “Green AV” anti-virus software only to find that it is in fact rogueware (often referred to as scareware in this context). Users are captured either by Trojans or web sites that purport to be on-line virus scanners. Once infected, the software repeatedly warns that the machine is badly infected with viruses and other malware, but also that they can only be removed by purchasing the full version of the scanner. The full version is totally useless but by the time that is discovered the user will have already parted with their money and, more importantly, their credit card and personal details.

Such fake anti-virus programs have been around for some time but the increased awareness of the public to green initiatives has become the latest selling point for these malware authors. In this case the sellers claim to be donating a portion of the proceeds to “an environmental care program”. To further reinforce the perceived selling power of the green message, this fake has a price tag of $99.99, higher than the $45 to $80 typically charged by other scareware brands (Byron Acohido has a good article on the profits being earned by rogueware distributors).

The irony here is that not only do the green credentials of the product appear to be bogus but the amount of energy being expended when it runs and wastes your valuable processor time along with the effort in trying to remove it probably outweigh any donation that might have been made! Just look at how many places now store the instructions for its removal not to mention the stories about it (including this one!)

So in a market that includes GreenWash, and now GreenScams, the message must be that just because something says it’s “Green” doesn’t always mean that it’s good for you, let alone good for the environment.

We would like to make it clear that we in no way condone the production and distribution of any malware nor the use of misleading business practices. We are in no way involved or associated with any malware nor its promotion or advertising.

Green Software Confusion?

The phrase “Green Software” is being used more and more to describe the next step in achieving Green IT systems, but what is it? To answer this we can try breaking the phrase into its individual parts, which with two words looks like an easy task!

So first lets take the easy word “Software” as we all know what that is – don’t we? Well the answer seems to be yes and no. It all depends how you look at it. To me, as a software engineer, software is a product; you may not be able to touch it but it still has to be designed, manufactured and delivered. To a user, however, it’s a tool just like a hammer or a car that is delivered to the home or workplace to be used; everything that happened before is relatively unimportant.

OK, lets try “Green”. This also seems to carry ambiguity – what do we mean by a “Green Car”? Is it that colour or is it made from recycled products? Maybe it’s about being able to recycle the parts at the end of the car’s life or the type of fuel it uses. Should we define a car as being “Green” only if it meets all of these criteria?

Video-Conferencing

The use of video conferencing to hold meetings between geographically spread people has been given a high profile within the green IT movement. Removing the need to travel long distances, whilst still retaining the visual cues through which 93% of communication is made, sounds like a great return on the investment. In addition to eliminating the financial costs of travel, the carbon emissions produced can also be greatly reduced, but not eliminated. The technology required to enable video conferencing still has to be manufactured and then consumes power in operation all of which has a footprint too.

The use of video conferencing by Vodafone resulted in 13,500 fewer flights in 2006 thereby saving thousands of tonnes of CO₂e. This is not the only saving to be gained from the use of technology, as travelling to meetings also incurs other costs such as accomodation and subsistence along with unproductive employee time. A poll in 2007 of the UK Government’s Department for International Development found that 37% of staff believed that video-conferencing had reduced the amount of travel required. Furthermore, 38% believed that it had improved their work-life balance. Changing the balance could be seen as more important to an organisation than the raw costs as happy staff are more likely to be productive, but also removing the ‘red-eye’ meeting should produce better results for all parties.