No use of Power Usage Effectiveness?

[JacobValdemar]

I can't find PUE used anywhere in BoaviztAPI. Is that correct? And if yes, why is it not used?

[da-ekchajzer]

We do not use the power usage effectiveness because we only consider the impacts of the cloud instance and not its environment. If we include it, we also have to extend the scope to include the embedded impacts of the overhead (the same scope covered by the PUE) which is not possible for now since public data to qualify the environmental impacts of the datacenter environment are not available.

If you are ok I am switching this issue to a discussion because we'll need to do it at some point.

In your opinion, should we :

• Wait
• Wait and add a warning
• Add only the PUE and wait for the embedded impacts

[AirLoren]

We could arbitrarily set the value of the overhead to encourage CSPs to provide us with a value closer to reality in their context.

[da-ekchajzer]

I will think about several ways to do it. @AirLoren any idea ?

[AirLoren]

There is at least an overhead of 33% for redundancy on 3 Availability Zones and 50% on 2 Availability zones. Overhead related to control plane (all CSP tools used to deliver, monitor and bill services) is harder to evaluate but discussed this subject with small CSPs and their overhead was between 20 and 30%. This overhead should be lower for AWS, GCP and Azure but setting this value to 30% for all CSP wouldn't seem so far from reality. Then a total overhead of 63% could be a good starting point.

[da-ekchajzer]

We should differentiate between :

• The compute/storage overhead (redoundancy, control plan, internal services...)
• The IT Overhead (network)
• The non-IT (cooling, support, ...

I now remember that this issue is treated in this issue : https://github.com/Boavizta/boaviztapi/issues/71

We can continue the conversation in the other issue. I will close this one.