- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Clever IT use slashes carbon dioxide output
|
|
Comments (29)
good idea
A lot of PCs don't need to be on all the time, so why leave them running? when you're done for the day, shut it down.
> so why leave them running?
A surprisingly large number of people partially revolve their LIVES around online activities, thus requiring (in their minds at least) to have their computers on 24/7. A few of these person-types come to mind: - those performing more extensive uploads and downloads overnight when overall online activity is believed to be much less active - those requiring CONSTANT updates for stock tickers or key news items - those requiring after-hours online technical support from personnel located halfway around the world (here in the U.S., this could very well be outsourced support from India) Probably there are a few other types as well, who truly believe that they require this 24/7 energy-wastage :( Definitely not saying that this is praiseworthy; it is NOT. Just a fact of life for such persons.
One related issue is the speed necessary to get online and off for those who prefer not using Wake-On/Wake-Off features . 1. You have to power on your computer and have it go through its POST. 2. You have to load an OS and have it bring up its shell and/or UI, along with network activation. 3. You have to start the online action you need to accomplish, whether it be ftp, http, email app, .... When finished, 4. You have to stop the online activity. 5. You have to perform a Shutdown, shutting down services such as the computer's network connection and then turning off its power.
This all takes a bit of time and extra electricity, even with the latest HW, OS kernel, and power saver features. This process is just not as quick as turning on/off a lightbulb, a radio, or a TV, regardless of the computer-power streamlining that continues to occur.
A surprisingly large number of people partially revolve their LIVES around online activities, thus requiring (in their minds at least) to have their computers on 24/7. A few of these person-types come to mind: - those performing more extensive uploads and downloads overnight when overall online activity is believed to be much less active - those requiring CONSTANT updates for stock tickers or key news items - those requiring after-hours online technical support from personnel located halfway around the world (here in the U.S., this could very well be outsourced support from India) Probably there are a few other types as well, who truly believe that they require this 24/7 energy-wastage :( Definitely not saying that this is praiseworthy; it is NOT. Just a fact of life for such persons.
One related issue is the speed necessary to get online and off for those who prefer not using Wake-On/Wake-Off features . 1. You have to power on your computer and have it go through its POST. 2. You have to load an OS and have it bring up its shell and/or UI, along with network activation. 3. You have to start the online action you need to accomplish, whether it be ftp, http, email app, .... When finished, 4. You have to stop the online activity. 5. You have to perform a Shutdown, shutting down services such as the computer's network connection and then turning off its power.
This all takes a bit of time and extra electricity, even with the latest HW, OS kernel, and power saver features. This process is just not as quick as turning on/off a lightbulb, a radio, or a TV, regardless of the computer-power streamlining that continues to occur.
I'll be honest, I have done nothing but restart my computer for years.. its always on, but then my last electric bill was
$48.
I think I can live with the extra cost.
I think I can live with the extra cost.
Hehehe. I always turn my computer off when I intend to leave it for more than an hour. Despite that, when the meter man came by last week he told us that last year we (my girlfriend and I) used more power just in the peak tarrif (mo-vr 06:00-21:00) than a family with 2 kids in high and low tarrif combined!
Must be that 2x450 Watt ProLiant I keep running 24/7.
Must be that 2x450 Watt ProLiant I keep running 24/7.
Other Factors
1 earlier comment in the full thread.
Same here... as one acquaintance put it, you never know if it will come on again.
I work often in the evenings on my job machine over ssh. Don't know how to remotely turn it off and on (well, I know how to do off... but not on :-)
One item to check also is the cost, in terms of energy, of manufacturing the computer. Wouldn't be surprised if it were significant. Then "clever IT" includes operating system software that doesn't artificially obsolesce your hardware ;-)
I work often in the evenings on my job machine over ssh. Don't know how to remotely turn it off and on (well, I know how to do off... but not on :-)
One item to check also is the cost, in terms of energy, of manufacturing the computer. Wouldn't be surprised if it were significant. Then "clever IT" includes operating system software that doesn't artificially obsolesce your hardware ;-)
I knew the 'thermal shock' argument would rear its head, as it always does when this subject comes up. It's even used to justify leaving lights on 24x7, because the poor little filaments can't tolerate the thermal stresses of being turned on and off. But no one ever presents any relevant data; it just sounds like fussy engineering theories. I can't count the number of old PCs that are running just fine that get turned off and on on a regular basis; I have customers still running Win 3.11 on 486s. I don't see any downside to turning electric gear off when it doesn't need to be running.
>I don't see any downside to turning electric gear off when it doesn't need to be running.
That's because you heartlessly disregard the psychological well-being of your Silicon-American friends.
Just imagine the psychological stress they endure each night, knowing that their owner -- their beloved owner -- will kill them.
The sorrow. The agony. The shame.
That's because you heartlessly disregard the psychological well-being of your Silicon-American friends.
Just imagine the psychological stress they endure each night, knowing that their owner -- their beloved owner -- will kill them.
The sorrow. The agony. The shame.
I am so insensitive. I totally wasn't thinking, dino. I think I will treat my little Silicon-American friends to some nice mugs of beer, and then they will feel better. Here you go, little friends, cheers! Drink u
"That's because you heartlessly disregard the psychological well-being of your Silicon-American friends."
Oh sure, they laugh now....
Oh sure, they laugh now....
There is a far bigger difference between thermal shock to a light bulb filament and sensitive electronic components. As for "fussy engineering" ideas, although I am retired now, I worked in that "fussy engineering" area, both military and civilian, beginning in the late 1960's. Likewise, I've held three Federal Communications Commission licenses since 1967. So, I'll stand by my theory and everything I was taught, as well as what we experienced under lab testing conditions. Others are free to do as they choose.
zenarcher, there's one point you overlook: The equipment you use at home has been designed to be turned on/off on a regular basis (to withstand thermal shock). So are modern light bulbs. It's a valid case for specialty equipment or things designed to run 24/7, but not for the run-off-the-mill consumer devices.
In other words, you are saying that power supply components, integrated circuits, surface mounted components, solder joints on circuit boards and such are special design, meant to survive these environmental variables, unlike mil-standard components used in commercial and military equipment? That sounds a bit backwards to me. I've always considered my ham radio equipment to be home use, although in the old days, I owned Collins, which was all military grade equipment and the recommendations remained the same.
I'll say that I have four computers here in the house which are all on 24/7. They run on KVM switches to two LCD displays. Probably someone using CRT monitors is eating far more electricity than my systems. Actually, I got rid of the biggest energy consumers in my house. Kids. They grew up, moved away and pay their own electric bills.
I'll say that I have four computers here in the house which are all on 24/7. They run on KVM switches to two LCD displays. Probably someone using CRT monitors is eating far more electricity than my systems. Actually, I got rid of the biggest energy consumers in my house. Kids. They grew up, moved away and pay their own electric bills.
Quoting:In other words, you are saying that power supply components, integrated circuits, surface mounted components, solder joints on circuit boards and such are special design, meant to survive these environmental variables, unlike mil-standard components used in commercial and military equipment?
Well, if you put it like that...... yes :-)
It's simply engineering to a different standard. An engineer designing a decent consumer device can expect it to be turned on/off lots of times, get dropped, shaken, have coffee spilled on it and may even have flaky power. An engineer designing a similar device for the military has different priorities.
Also note that I said *decent* consumer device. If you buy a flaky, cheapo whitebox and start flipping the powerswitch, you're on your own :-)
An engineer designing a similar device for the military better make sure he accounts for the coffee spillage, probably x5. ;-)
Well, perhaps times have changed, but when I worked in design, commercial equipment was really built with minimal tolerances, as it was all about profit, while with military, cost was not such a factor.
As for the coffee factor, I'd completely agree! When I was in the Air Force (circa 1962), I was on an Atlas Missile Crew at Vandenburg AFB, in California. We were involved with several launches at that time. I recall one launch, where guidance was lost and we had to blow the thing up before it ever reached the ocean. Part of our job was recovery in those cases, as most of the parts were classified. During reconstruction on that one, to establish the cause, a coffee cup was found to have been left in the guidance pod.:)
As for the coffee factor, I'd completely agree! When I was in the Air Force (circa 1962), I was on an Atlas Missile Crew at Vandenburg AFB, in California. We were involved with several launches at that time. I recall one launch, where guidance was lost and we had to blow the thing up before it ever reached the ocean. Part of our job was recovery in those cases, as most of the parts were classified. During reconstruction on that one, to establish the cause, a coffee cup was found to have been left in the guidance pod.:)
You mean to tell me guidance pods *don't* drink coffee?
What's with all the "hibernate" and/or "sleep" mode stuff on computers these days? I thought these were supposed to give us the benefits of powering off without the negative impact of thermal shock? IANAEngineer
What's with all the "hibernate" and/or "sleep" mode stuff on computers these days? I thought these were supposed to give us the benefits of powering off without the negative impact of thermal shock? IANAEngineer
Quoting:when I worked in design, commercial equipment was really built with minimal tolerances, as it was all about profit
It often still is, but customers are demanding better quality, and companies are starting to pick up on it. When I was in University some years ago, everyone was issued a laptop. When in it's pack, it could survive 10 feet drops. Coffee was no problem. Whaddaya mean turning it off and letting it dry? No need!
They were Toshiba Sattelite's from the PII era BTW.
> I was taught, as well as what we experienced under lab testing conditions. Others are free to do as they choose.
My experience in OEM controls food/drug/packaging industry has given me a very similar perspective to zenarcher. I always run a desktop/workstation 24/7. Of course we have to recognize that Laptops have been designed to reduce thermal shock, often at the expense of long term heat dissipation. It's a 'very good' idea to shut down a laptop when not in use.
> Coffee was no problem. Whaddaya mean turning it off and letting it dry? No need!
> They were Toshiba Sattelite's from the PII era BTW.
I witnessed several of my controls guys disprove that claim in quick order. Although, repair turn around was better than usual ;-)
My experience in OEM controls food/drug/packaging industry has given me a very similar perspective to zenarcher. I always run a desktop/workstation 24/7. Of course we have to recognize that Laptops have been designed to reduce thermal shock, often at the expense of long term heat dissipation. It's a 'very good' idea to shut down a laptop when not in use.
> Coffee was no problem. Whaddaya mean turning it off and letting it dry? No need!
> They were Toshiba Sattelite's from the PII era BTW.
I witnessed several of my controls guys disprove that claim in quick order. Although, repair turn around was better than usual ;-)
I read some tests - might have been by the old Computer Shopper rag - where they tested hardened laptops. Actually, Toshiba had the best reputation among the pack then. Even on my job, the folks used to swear by their old Toshibas (I received an ancient monster at one point, and people seemed to have really fond memories of its toughness).
Several years ago, I had one of the Toshiba laptops, as well. I purchased it with a three year warranty and I would imagine Toshiba still regrets that plan, since I paid nothing extra for it. It was a tough old machine and over three years, I have to say Toshiba was quick with repairs. In that period of time, they replaced 3 keyboards (I wore the letters off the keys), 1 motherboard, 1 power supply, 1 hard drive and 1 complete case which had begun to develop small hairline cracks in several places. I don't think they made a dime on that sale!
> It's simply engineering to a different standard. An engineer designing a decent consumer device can expect it to be turned on/off lots of times, get dropped, shaken, have coffee spilled on it and may even have flaky power. An engineer designing a similar device for the military has different priorities.
Yes, he does have additional priorities. Larger temperature range, emf shielding, and radiation resistance, for example. However, frequent loss of/dirty power, frequent shutdowns for movement, being transported (often over rugged terrain), and having coffee/water/blood/(insert other applicable fluids) here spilled on them are still large considerations for military design.
Simply put, imo, you're wrong.
Yes, he does have additional priorities. Larger temperature range, emf shielding, and radiation resistance, for example. However, frequent loss of/dirty power, frequent shutdowns for movement, being transported (often over rugged terrain), and having coffee/water/blood/(insert other applicable fluids) here spilled on them are still large considerations for military design.
Simply put, imo, you're wrong.
>Simply put, imo, you're wrong.
Sounds like nobody in this thread is right. Where are the engineers?
The right answer, as usual, is "it depends".
For example:
If consumer equipment, how long will it stay off when you shut it down? How long do you expect to keep it? Seriously, if you're likely to upgrade before the thing gives up the ghost, save some freakin' electicity.
And then there is the mechanical question -- Computers aren't all electronic. Fans and hard drives have these little things called bearings. Do you know with certainty the relative quality of the moving parts in your purchased-as-a-box computer pc? Whether they will suffer more from being shut down once a day or from constantly turning?
I leave my stuff on, but, except for the Myth backend, I probably should turn it off.
Sounds like nobody in this thread is right. Where are the engineers?
The right answer, as usual, is "it depends".
For example:
If consumer equipment, how long will it stay off when you shut it down? How long do you expect to keep it? Seriously, if you're likely to upgrade before the thing gives up the ghost, save some freakin' electicity.
And then there is the mechanical question -- Computers aren't all electronic. Fans and hard drives have these little things called bearings. Do you know with certainty the relative quality of the moving parts in your purchased-as-a-box computer pc? Whether they will suffer more from being shut down once a day or from constantly turning?
I leave my stuff on, but, except for the Myth backend, I probably should turn it off.
Quoting:I read some tests - might have been by the old Computer Shopper rag - where they tested hardened laptops.
PC/Computing (sadly discontinued) used to do torture tests yearly with all the current consumer laptops (and usually showed a few hardened models on the side).
They'd flat and edge drop em, freeze em, cook em (literally), coffee em, etc. It was always my favorite issue.
As for my machines, they stay on. Most are running servers. My personal box I like immediate access to when I get up. I don't like having to boot it up, start up all my frequently used programs, reconnect to irc and im servers, etc. :)
I leave my server up (a power sucking ProLiant) but it's busy 24/7. Anything else gets turned off if it can. Only my VCR stays on standby but it has no off besides pulling the plug.
Get your info right
Obviously, the article was written by someone who either has no concept of basic electrical principles, or fails to review her work before hitting the "submit" button. Unless one is able to use one's computer as a space heater, turning it off will not save 1200kW of power. That 1200KW is 1.2 megawatts - enough to heat a pretty good sized apartment complex. Perhaps the author meant 1200kWH (kilowatt-hours), which is the product of power (in kilowats) and time (in hours).
Nevertheless, with 8760 hours/year, 1.2kWH would work out to a full-time computer drawing about 137 watts. Gamer's machines probably draw more, as might servers. Still, I'd think her figures assume that folks keep their computers on 24 hours/day, 7 days a week, rather than shut them off after 8 hours of use. By shutting off the computers at the end of a workday (and on weekends), it IS possible to save significant amounts of power.
The same is true for other appliances at home and work - turn off lights in rooms when there's no one there, turn off televisions which are not being watched, close off vents and doors to rooms which are never occupied, open & close windows to help regulate temperature (instead of using air conditioners and heaters) and reduce the hot water tank's temperature to less than 140 degrees. Every little bit helps, it's not difficult to do, and it hardly makes a difference in one's lifestyle, but makes a substantial change in our use of resources.
Nevertheless, with 8760 hours/year, 1.2kWH would work out to a full-time computer drawing about 137 watts. Gamer's machines probably draw more, as might servers. Still, I'd think her figures assume that folks keep their computers on 24 hours/day, 7 days a week, rather than shut them off after 8 hours of use. By shutting off the computers at the end of a workday (and on weekends), it IS possible to save significant amounts of power.
The same is true for other appliances at home and work - turn off lights in rooms when there's no one there, turn off televisions which are not being watched, close off vents and doors to rooms which are never occupied, open & close windows to help regulate temperature (instead of using air conditioners and heaters) and reduce the hot water tank's temperature to less than 140 degrees. Every little bit helps, it's not difficult to do, and it hardly makes a difference in one's lifestyle, but makes a substantial change in our use of resources.
>Every little bit helps, it's not difficult to do, and it hardly makes a difference in one's lifestyle, but makes a substantial change in our use of resources.
I've been intrigued with this idea for a little while now, but from the opposite perspective -- the green effects of a computer that you keep on all of the time.
Good old-fashioned un-sexy client/server and thin-client models give us the potential to do save a little energy by off-loading heavy lifting (and, maybe, scheduling) to one somewhat powerful backend that stays on all the time, and lightweight little frontends that start right up when you turn them on and go happily to bed when you turn them off.
The thing that has got me thinking is MythTV, which uses a frontend/backend model. You always need the backend running, because it kicks in to record shows that you want to watch. But... one backend can serve every television (or monitor, as the case may be) in your house. They can use fairly low-powered frontends, and they can be switched off without losing any recording schedule.
I wonder how many other things work that way? Maybe a central home computer that wakes things up as needed? Start the stove, make the coffeer? turn on the (now clockless) radio -- er -- audio playback unit?
I've been intrigued with this idea for a little while now, but from the opposite perspective -- the green effects of a computer that you keep on all of the time.
Good old-fashioned un-sexy client/server and thin-client models give us the potential to do save a little energy by off-loading heavy lifting (and, maybe, scheduling) to one somewhat powerful backend that stays on all the time, and lightweight little frontends that start right up when you turn them on and go happily to bed when you turn them off.
The thing that has got me thinking is MythTV, which uses a frontend/backend model. You always need the backend running, because it kicks in to record shows that you want to watch. But... one backend can serve every television (or monitor, as the case may be) in your house. They can use fairly low-powered frontends, and they can be switched off without losing any recording schedule.
I wonder how many other things work that way? Maybe a central home computer that wakes things up as needed? Start the stove, make the coffeer? turn on the (now clockless) radio -- er -- audio playback unit?
Quoting:The thing that has got me thinking is MythTV, which uses a frontend/backend model.
From an environmental perspective MythTV is the wrong way around. The power-hungry back end needs to run 24/7 and the light front-end is powered off. It would be better for the 24/7 component to be light and only use the power suckers when needed.
A similar thing with your client/server example: It's only better for the environment if the workload is high enough. If the workload is light, a bunch of fat clients that are turned on occasionally will use less power than a 24/7 power hungry server and low power thin clients. It's only when the workload increases that it becomes (environmentally) efficient to replace the fat-clients by thin clients and add a server.
>From an environmental perspective MythTV is the wrong way around.
Ummm...As in most things environmental, you need to think a little more deeply than that.
It's like calling an electric car emissions-free because you conveniently ignore power-generation. And that doesn't even touch the environmental impact of all those batteries.
Or calling an SUV wasteful and a Prius environmentally-friendly. It's all in what you do with it. A full SUV may be easier on the environment than one person in a Prius. Just like commuter trains reduce fuel use, even though they GOBBLE diesel.
In the case of MythTV (or, I imagine, a household control center), only one machine is needed to do the things that require constant operation. It can host 2 or 3 or 4 tuners if you want. It can be a relatively low power box like a Turion X2 or Core Duo. It can slow down when it's not busy, going full burst only when transcoding for commercial deletion or some such thing. It can run headless.
Yes. The more powerful box runs all the time. But, if it lets you use 2-3 low power units that you turn on and off as you need them, it will save you power.
Ummm...As in most things environmental, you need to think a little more deeply than that.
It's like calling an electric car emissions-free because you conveniently ignore power-generation. And that doesn't even touch the environmental impact of all those batteries.
Or calling an SUV wasteful and a Prius environmentally-friendly. It's all in what you do with it. A full SUV may be easier on the environment than one person in a Prius. Just like commuter trains reduce fuel use, even though they GOBBLE diesel.
In the case of MythTV (or, I imagine, a household control center), only one machine is needed to do the things that require constant operation. It can host 2 or 3 or 4 tuners if you want. It can be a relatively low power box like a Turion X2 or Core Duo. It can slow down when it's not busy, going full burst only when transcoding for commercial deletion or some such thing. It can run headless.
Yes. The more powerful box runs all the time. But, if it lets you use 2-3 low power units that you turn on and off as you need them, it will save you power.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post