And a single point of failure? On 19/07/07, andrew holway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is exactly the point I was trying to get across. Assuming your not using vista there is no reason why you need more than one computer. What are these old systems doing for you? a bit of dns? Maybe some kind of webserver? mail? I have all these thing running in virtual environments on 1 PC which I also use as my workstation. It is a responsibility that we must all face to consolidate our computing to use the smallest amount of resources. Andrew On 19/07/07, Mark Morgan Lloyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jordan Bettis wrote: > > > Like Chris said, new machines generally draw a lot more power overall. > > My Ultra 5 that I use as my desktop can draw 200W max, and probably > > doesn't really draw much over 100W total. Compare that to a typical > > modern PC desktop that has a 400W supply in it and probably draws well > > over 200W, mostly to power a GPU so it can display silly bouncing > > icons and semi-transparent window edges. > > There are two separate things to take into account here. The first is the > quiescent consumption, I admit to not having values from a number of systems > so for the sake of argument I'll agree that this is generally increasing. > However I'd suggest that if a computer is sitting there doing noting you'd be > better looking for ways to power it off or use a shared computing resource- > Sunray or whatever. > > The second thing- where I do have numbers to back up my argument- is how much > energy is consumed to perform a unit of work. My figures, by and large, show > that while running a "torture test" a range of computers consume between 60 > and 550W, with no overwhelming correlation with their age. On the other hand > the time to complete a unit of work has dropped dramatically over the last 20 > years, which leads me to suggest that by and large the energy consumed per > unit of work has also dropped significantly. > > Looking at two extreme cases: > > SPARCstation 20, 2 jobs, 130W (175VA) 8m12.582s 1,068 > > Compaq AP550 1GHz, 768Mb, 8 jobs, 135W (180VA) 0m42.730 96 > > That last column is W-min to complete a given workload, selecting the best > (fastest) figures by splitting it into a number of jobs. > > So assuming that the quiescent consumption is equal you're /far/ better off > with a newer system since even if it consumes substantially more power while > working hard it does so for far less time. > > -- > Mark Morgan Lloyd > markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk > > [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues] > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
