summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorORGERIE Anne-Cecile <anne-cecile.orgerie@inria.fr>2019-07-19 10:23:13 +0200
committerORGERIE Anne-Cecile <anne-cecile.orgerie@inria.fr>2019-07-19 10:23:13 +0200
commit1e00bdaebf5ff16677b078692f0949339f8be03e (patch)
treeefeef700caabfafa52a989822d74d8bf87492f99
parent4a7ae69dc1baab37e23d74ad12314f98bddda50e (diff)
après la vraie fusion
-rw-r--r--2019-ICA3PP.org7
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 7 deletions
diff --git a/2019-ICA3PP.org b/2019-ICA3PP.org
index 00c0904..1089552 100644
--- a/2019-ICA3PP.org
+++ b/2019-ICA3PP.org
@@ -508,19 +508,12 @@ In our case with small and sporadic network traffic, these results show that wit
consumption is high (around 97 Watts), it is more
energy efficient to maximize the number of sensors per server. As shown on Figure
\ref{fig:sensorsNumber-WPS}, a significant amount of energy can be save when passing from 20 to
-<<<<<<< HEAD
300 sensors per VM. Note that these measurements are not the row
measurements taken from the wattmeters: they include the PUE
but they are not shared among all the VMs that could be hosted on this
server. So, for the studied server, its static power consumption
(also called idle consumption) is around 83.2 Watts and we consider
a PUE of 1.2, this value is taken from \cite{shehabi_united_2016-1}}.
-=======
- 300 sensors per VM. Note that these measurements are the row
- measurements taken from the wattmeters: they do not include the PUE
- and are not shared among all the VMs that could be hosted on this
- server.
->>>>>>> 8291ba58641595f2ed132003b65b00e57aba198f
#+BEGIN_EXPORT latex
\begin{figure}