Thin Provisioning and Storage Consolidation: Measuring Capacity Savings Separately from Energy and Carbon Reductions
Abstract
Thin provisioning and storage consolidation are frequently described as energy-saving measures, although capacity efficiency does not automatically translate into lower power consumption or carbon emissions. We measured logical capacity savings, physical utilisation, device count, facility power, and estimated operational carbon across 24 storage configurations before and after consolidation. Thin provisioning reduced allocated physical capacity by a median of 32%, and consolidation enabled retirement or avoidance of hardware in 10 configurations. However, measured energy reduction ranged from 2% to 21% because active arrays retained substantial baseline power draw even at lower utilisation. Carbon benefit also varied with regional electricity intensity and whether retired equipment was actually decommissioned. Configurations that improved capacity utilisation without reducing powered hardware showed little change in energy use. The findings demonstrate that storage-efficiency metrics should not be reported as direct proxies for environmental performance. Organisations seeking sustainability gains should separately measure capacity avoided, hardware eliminated, power reduced, and carbon intensity, and should document the causal pathway linking provisioning changes to energy or emissions outcomes.
References
1. Nazir M. Capacity reclamation and thin-provisioning efficiency in large-scale enterprise storage systems. International Journal of Business & Computational Sciences. 2021;1(1). Available from: https://ijbcs.org/index.php/IJBCS/article/view/2021P4
2. Jahid A, Haque GMM, Ansari I, Azam MA. Sustainable IT infrastructure and green data analytics: measuring environmental performance in digital enterprises. The American Journal of Engineering and Technology. 2026;8(3):80-106. doi:10.37547/tajet/Volume08Issue03-06.
3. Masanet E, Shehabi A, Lei N, Smith S, Koomey J. Recalibrating global data center energy-use estimates. Science. 2020;367(6481):984-986. doi:10.1126/science.aba3758.
4. Barroso LA, Hölzle U. The case for energy-proportional computing. Computer. 2007;40(12):33-37. doi:10.1109/MC.2007.443.
5. Beloglazov A, Abawajy J, Buyya R. Energy-aware resource allocation heuristics for efficient management of data centers for cloud computing. Future Gener Comput Syst. 2012;28(5):755-768. doi:10.1016/j.future.2011.04.017.
6. Dayarathna M, Wen Y, Fan R. Data center energy consumption modeling: a survey. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor. 2016;18(1):732-794. doi:10.1109/COMST.2015.2481183.
7. Henderson P, Hu J, Romoff J, Brunskill E, Jurafsky D, Pineau J. Towards the systematic reporting of the energy and carbon footprints of machine learning. J Mach Learn Res. 2020;21(248):1-43. Available from: https://jmlr.org/papers/v21/20-312.html
8. Dodge J, Prewitt T, Tachet des Combes R, Odmark E, Schwartz R, Strubell E, et al. Measuring the carbon intensity of AI in cloud instances. In: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 2022. doi:10.1145/3531146.3533234.
9. Radovanović A, Koningstein R, Schneider I, Chen B, Duarte A, Roy B, et al. Carbon-aware computing for datacenters. arXiv [Preprint]. 2021. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2106.11750.
10. World Resources Institute, World Business Council for Sustainable Development. The greenhouse gas protocol: a corporate accounting and reporting standard. Revised edition. Washington (DC): World Resources Institute. 2004. Available from: https://ghgprotocol.org/corporate-standard
11. Green Software Foundation. Software Carbon Intensity specification [Internet]. [cited 2026 Sep 22]. Available from: https://sci.greensoftware.foundation/
12. Freitag C, Berners-Lee M, Widdicks K, Knowles B, Blair GS, Friday A. The real climate and transformative impact of ICT: a critique of estimates, trends, and regulations. Patterns. 2021;2(9):100340. doi:10.1016/j.patter.2021.100340.
13. Lakens D. Sample size justification. Collabra Psychol. 2022;8(1):33267. doi:10.1525/collabra.33267.
14. Nosek BA, Ebersole CR, DeHaven AC, Mellor DT. The preregistration revolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(11):2600-2606. doi:10.1073/pnas.1708274114.
15. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A, et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data. 2016;3:160018. doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18.
16. Lakens D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol. 2013;4:863. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863.
17. Efron B. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat. 1979;7(1):1-26. doi:10.1214/aos/1176344552.
18. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 1995;57(1):289-300. doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors retain copyright. Articles published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0) may be shared and adapted for any purpose, including commercially, provided appropriate credit is given, a link to the licence is supplied, and changes are indicated. No additional legal or technological restrictions may be imposed. Third-party material is included only where its credit line permits. Licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Earlier publications remain subject to their stated licence and author agreements unless the rights holder authorizes a change.
