[thebigshane]

Good idea, but I can't help but see this as marketing spin over the alternative title of the same story

"Google: Data centers now perform LESS when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing"

[jorams]

I don't see your point. That alternative title is exactly as accurate, so it seems like a good idea to pick the version that sounds a bit better and is easier to understand.

[thebigshane]

Of course its a better idea to pick the version that sounds better. That's what I said; I know both are accurate.

My point is that by tying performance to environmental factors, you get a boost when things are great but then can have troubles when things are not great. Anyone familiar with solar panels already knows this, but if the correlation is obscured, it could be surprising. The article didn't mention a specific performance gain, but if we say you get an X% performance gain when the sun is out, it also means you get a similar X% performance loss when the sun is not out. Users of the system will get used to the improvement, which becomes the new standard, and then a particularly dreary season comes in with weeks of cloud cover, and suddenly there is concern about the degradation of service.

(Like I said, it's still a good idea, it's efficient use of resources, but the PR is funny, that's all.)