this topic is inherently redundant. if the system environment justifies staying up, it stays up. if not, staying up is a waste of resources. can we close this before the group is reduced to redundancy itself?
Tom Massey wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 11:19:00AM +0000, Frank Zimmermann wrote: > > > As long as your talking about servers this uptime thing is ok, but > > when talking about workstaions it's redicolous, premature and an > > unjustifiable waste of natural resources. > > <offtopicish> Is it really? Just thinking in terms of wastage of resources > here. > My understanding is that most of the electricity a workstation consumes goes > into booting, the power consumed while running is much less than this. While > running, most of the power seems to go to the monitor. So, I would think that > a machine left running, with the monitor turned off when not in use (either > through manually turning it off, or with power management etc) would actually > be less of a drain on resources than one which is booted every day, with the > huge drain that a boot seems to include. (Admittedly, most of my info on this > is based on testing in the 486 era, but I don't see why it would have > changed). > </offtopicish> > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]