Bob wrote:
>Well, I guess someone could run in at night to turn on the server to allow
>incoming e-mail to trickle in...
I'm not refering to any server but the clients (or workstations if you
prefer that).
>Network "stuff" does eat power, but it would be pretty tough to track
>exactly who's going to use the network and at what times to allow selective
>powering down of equipment. And route udpates and similar info needs to be
>propogated so that the network converges properly BEFORE people start using
>it to avoid long delays and creation of un-necessary traffic for each
>request. Wake-on-LAN might be extended to network devices, but again the
>"chatter" tends to be ongoing if not continuous.
But I'm not refering to the trafic the routers (and other equipment like
it) is sending but the ones the client computers are sending.
>It would be nice to minimize power consumption, but I don't think network
>eqiupment would be a good candidate, unless we're talking about stand-alone
>network segments with no need to communicate to the outside world.
You have got me all wrong. I do NOT suggest that the network is powered
down but that the (user) computers on it should be turned off when not
used. By doing so the network traffic would be reduced (atleast on a single
segment) and the power usage would be much less.
How much power does a single computer use (including monitor) when turned
on for 16 hours? (This is for the aproximately time of unuse - more likely
it's a few hours more.)
(I have no idea of the ammount of computers however so this is probably
pointless... I think I can access ca 300 PCs and 50 MACs (yuk!) - but it's
a big university).
//Bernie
http://hem1.passagen.se/bernie/index.htm DOS programs, Star Wars ...
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
