On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 10:56:03PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
G.W. Haywood wrote:
~$ echo 24 * 365.25 | bc
8766.00
but I only did this to illustrate the more compact use of some system
tools, in this case 'echo', 'bc' and a pipe. :)
While I am a long time bc user and won't knock it I
On Sep 1, 2007, at 6:32 AM, Dennis G. Wicks wrote:
The most common failure mode of drives is bearing failure.
Hmm, weird. I haven't had a bearing failure since I was using 5.25
MFM and RLL drives in the PC-AT days. My hard disk failures have all
been head crashes, gradual bit rot, or
G.W. Haywood wrote:
~$ echo 24 * 365.25 | bc
8766.00
but I only did this to illustrate the more compact use of some system
tools, in this case 'echo', 'bc' and a pipe. :)
While I am a long time bc user and won't knock it I might still
suggest alternatives just because... If we stick to
Yes, that´s right but if you have to perform many operations
maybe the echo + bc form is quite faster
Felix
If I had to perform many computations and found
that the speed of Python was too slow, I would
probably code in C or Fortran instead
--
Stanley C. Kitching
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:34:56PM -0500, Cousin Stanley wrote:
My previous server used 100 Watts on average.
If left on 24/7, that's 61,320 hours a year,
or 6,132,000 Watt-hours or 6,132 kWh.
Adam
The number of hours per year that you used
in your calculation
The number of hours per year that you used
in your calculation seems a bit high
hours_per_day = 24
days_per_year = 366
hours_per_year = hours_per_day * days_per_year
print '\n ' , hours_per_year
8784
Just out of idle interest, what
Cousin Stanley on 02/09/07 02:34, wrote:
My previous server used 100 Watts on average.
If left on 24/7, that's 61,320 hours a year,
or 6,132,000 Watt-hours or 6,132 kWh.
Adam
The number of hours per year that you used
in your calculation seems a bit high
Hi there,
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 Cousin Stanley wrote:
My previous server used 100 Watts on average.
If left on 24/7, that's 61,320 hours a year,
or 6,132,000 Watt-hours or 6,132 kWh.
The number of hours per year that you used
in your calculation seems a bit high
That's still a little bit high, actually:
~$ echo 24 * 365.25 | bc
8766.00
but I only did this to illustrate the more compact use
of some system tools, in this case 'echo', 'bc' and a pipe. :)
G.W.
Python can also be used in a handy and compact form
$ python -c x = 24 *
Yes, that´s right but if you have to perform many operations maybe the
echo + bc form is quite faster:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ time echo 24 * 365.25 | bc
8766.00
real0m0.018s
user0m0.002s
sys 0m0.001s
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ time python -c x = 24 * 365.25 ; print '%.2f' % x
8766.00
real
Hi,
I was wondering if powering on causes the most wear and tear to HD's,
than wouldn't it be wise to set timeout in /boot/grub/menu.lst to eg.
600 (10 min.) so that the HD's have some time for warming up before
they are accessed heavily on boot-up.
Manon.
David Brodbeck wrote the following on 08/28/2007 01:32 PM:
On Aug 28, 2007, at 10:50 AM, Raquel wrote:
I also understand that when the hard disks get power that the
platters torque just a tad, if not causing heads to come into
contact with the platter, at least causing wear on bearings.
In
I know your sentence continues along a different line, but let me just
interject here that computers have never consumed as much energy as they do
today. True, energy consumption
Tell that to the people who built those valve-based monstrosities back
in the 1940's, such as the Eniac :).
--
Leave it on! Set your screen saver to blank the screen to save your
monitor and that will save power.
Or, simply turn the monitor off when not using the PC, but leave the
PC on. That's what I do.
Screensavers nowadays are more of an art/whim than a necessity. That
didn't use to be the case,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 29/08/07 16:24, wrote:
On 8/28/07, Richard Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
3) I thought it was a waste of electricity, and money, to have a machine
running that wasn't being used.
it is but if you find a lot of other reasons to keep it alive then you
probably want
My previous server used 100 Watts on average.
If left on 24/7, that's 61,320 hours a year,
or 6,132,000 Watt-hours or 6,132 kWh.
Adam
The number of hours per year that you used
in your calculation seems a bit high
hours_per_day = 24
days_per_year = 366
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:01:01 +0300
Atis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A long time ago i measured that my PC is using 0.4A on normal
operation and 0.6A while CD-ROM spinning (on 220V AC). So, this
means
- 0.4*220 = 88 Watts. This is approximately like regular light bulb
(not very economic).
I
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:45:51 -0700
Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Specifically, as I understand it, thermal shock to minuscule
electronic components during power-on.
There is no thermal shock on power-on. What is most likely to fail is the PSU
(happened to me once).
--D.
--
To
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:18:54 -0400
Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The amount
electricity usage from present day devices is minimal
I know your sentence continues along a different line, but let me just
interject here that computers have never consumed as much energy as they do
today. True,
On 8/28/07, Richard Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
In the past I have always shut my Debian system down over night etc for 3
reasons:
1) I put backups on my 80GB external HD which I usually leave shut down even
when I boot the rest of the system. It's about the same age as my
On 8/29/07, Dan H [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:01:01 +0300
Atis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A long time ago i measured that my PC is using 0.4A on normal
operation and 0.6A while CD-ROM spinning (on 220V AC). So, this
means
- 0.4*220 = 88 Watts. This is approximately like
On Aug 29, 2007, at 8:01 AM, Dan H wrote:
88 watts it used to be. A modern desktop PC will consume several
hundred watts of power, which is as much as it takes to make a room
quite hot -- do you think you could get your room hot by leaving
the lights on?
It might be worthwile to measure
Hi Folks,
Is it better to leave a system running all the time or is it better to shut
it down over night, on weekends, holidays etc?
In the past I have always shut my Debian system down over night etc for 3
reasons:
1) I put backups on my 80GB external HD which I usually leave shut down even
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:28:35 -0400
Richard Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Richard,
But I notice that most backup utilities are designed to backup
automatically at the same time every day or week. That seems to
assume that the system is always running.
Depends when/how the backup is
reasons:
1) I put backups on my 80GB external HD which I usually leave shut
down even when I boot the rest of the system. It's about the same
age as my internal 160GB HD so I hoped to reduce the probability
of it failing at the same time as the internal HD by starting it
less often.
2) I hoped
on my 80GB external HD which I usually leave shut down even
when I boot the rest of the system. It's about the same age as my internal
160GB HD so I hoped to reduce the probability of it failing at the same time
as the internal HD by starting it less often.
2) I hoped to reduce the probability
also sprach Richard Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.08.28.1728 +0200]:
Is it better to leave a system running all the time or is it better to shut
it down over night, on weekends, holidays etc?
That's an easy question: shut it down, unless it needs to be doing
something. The environment will
for 3 reasons:
1) I put backups on my 80GB external HD which I usually leave shut
down even when I boot the rest of the system. It's about the same
age as my internal 160GB HD so I hoped to reduce the probability
of it failing at the same time as the internal HD by starting it
less often.
2) I
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:45:51 -0700
Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raquel wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:28:35 -0400
Richard Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Folks,
Is it better to leave a system running all the time or is it
better to shut it down over night, on weekends, holidays
On Aug 28, 2007, at 10:50 AM, Raquel wrote:
I also understand that when the hard disks get power that the
platters torque just a tad, if not causing heads to come into
contact with the platter, at least causing wear on bearings.
In theory start-ups put more stress on the spindle motor, yes.
- Original Message -
From: Raquel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: Shut down or leave on?
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:45:51 -0700
Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raquel wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:28:35 -0400
@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: Shut down or leave on?
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:45:51 -0700
Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raquel wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:28:35 -0400
Richard Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Folks,
Is it better to leave
On Aug 28, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Cavan Mejias wrote:
How much would all this apply to a laptop? I mean, are
they considered more robust or less? w/ regard to powering off and on?
I don't like to leave laptops on because I've had cooling fan
failures in a few laptops. I figure the
Raquel writes:
I also understand that when the hard disks get power that the
platters torque just a tad, if not causing heads to come into
contact with the platter, at least causing wear on bearings.
As somebody also posted, the heads get parked when the
drive powers down. If you
On Aug 28, 2007, at 3:46 PM, David Brodbeck wrote:
On Aug 28, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Cavan Mejias wrote:
How much would all this apply to a laptop? I mean, are
they considered more robust or less? w/ regard to powering off and on?
I don't like to leave laptops on because I've had
@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: Shut down or leave on?
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:45:51 -0700
Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raquel wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:28:35 -0400
Richard Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Folks,
Is it better to leave a system
On Aug 28, 2007, at 1:49 PM, Martin McCormick wrote:
I think some drives exercise the head rack during
lulls of activity to keep it from stiffening up.
Some older drives also periodically move the head around to do
thermal recalibration. As the drive warms up the platters expand and
the
I've always gone for leaving my machines on. I feel there is less
wear and tear on components by leaving the machine on.
Specifically, as I understand it, thermal shock to minuscule electronic
components during power-on. In the past, I've lost a number of
motherboards and processors due
**snip**
I hoped to reduce the probability of it [tape player]
failing at the same time as the internal HD by
starting it less often
For HDs the R/W head always comes into contact with the disc once the rotation drops
enough. Crack open a dead HD and you'll see nice concentric rings which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 28 August 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
I have two desktops and one laptop. I keep the desktops on 24x7.
The laptop I turn off whenever not in use. Because of being
battery powered, there are less current surges on power
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:22:43 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
It does save electricity and if you are concerned about system
maintenannce then all you need to do is ensure that anacron is
installed and running. anacron will run the maintenance task which
have been missed after
41 matches
Mail list logo
