+++ David Given [2011-03-26 18:35 +0000]: > On 26/03/11 17:07, Phil Endecott wrote: > [...] > > David, if you want to be "realistic", you'll find that in almost all cases > > small > > size, ARM, and even low performance are things that you should expect to > > pay a > > premium for. For fun you can try to factor in the reduction in your > > electricity > > bill, but normally the small x86 (i.e. Atom) box will still be cheaper. > > Well, the R3700 consumes (they say) about 25W when running, which is > about 20W more than the SheevaPlug --- so over a year, the R3700 > consumes about 200 kWh compared to the SheevaPlug's 40. I pay about 10p > per kWh, so this means that the relative running costs are 20 pounds vs 4...
_per year_, so if you use it for say 3 years that justifies an extra 50 quid. The longer you use it the more you save :-). And 10p/kWh is very cheap. I'm paying 14p/kWh (flat rate), and power is not going to get cheaper. (And actually it would be 22 quid all year @10p). At 14p/kWh you can spend an extra 74 quid over 3 years. Of course in practice disk power consumption matters here (my slug is 2W, the disk 10W), and sleep mode/power save behaviour is much more important than the headline power consumption when getting an annual energy use figure. Wall-warts too (where applicable). On some devices the wall wart uses more than the arm box attached to it. Personally I just couldn't bring myself to have a 24/7 server that used 25W+disk, no matter how cheap it is, because I know how unecessary that is, and I think energy consumption matters. Just pay the money for the cool stuff :-) You know you want to. :-) Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM http://wookware.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110329130827.gm17...@dream.aleph1.co.uk
