ANTant@zimage.com wrote:

> Yep, done this too with windows, blinds and curtains, opening windows at nights/during cooler
> days, etc. Only summer times and heat waves are the bad ones. Even added extra shades to over
> windows.

Adding curtains over your Windows is always a good idea ;-)

--
A computer is like an air conditioner,
it stops working when you open Windows.
Registered Linux user #337974 < http://giovanni.homelinux.net/ >

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:12:13 -0600, ANTant wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Electricity is sure getting expensive these days, especially during the summer time ($500 per month!). I would
> like to see if I can keep my little 24 hours/7 days Linux desktop/workstation (also acts like a private server,
> so I can ssh/VNC in from outside) from using a lot of power/electrcity when in idled mode. Currently, I told
> xscreensaver (using xmatrix at slow rate -- loved the first two Matrix movies!) to put my monitor to sleep and
> shut down after an hour and two hours. I do not use those 3D screen savers since they hog my 3D card and CPU, and
> my room gets too warm easily.
>
> Is there anything else to cool down? Should I really spin my HDDs down (is that a good idea and is it slow to
> spin up if I need it?). I heard about athcool utility, but it sounds scary since it can cause problems, data
> losses, etc. I really don't have the time to mess with it and deal with any problems that it might cause.
>
> I think in my BIOS, I turned off ACPI(?) and APM. Do I need these enabled? How can I check if I have the required
> components installed in my Debian and what do I need (apt-get install). FYI, here is my sensors -f during mostly
> idled and using the box via SSH:
>
> $ sensors -f
> w83697hf-isa-0290
> Adapter: ISA adapter
> VCore: +1.63 V (min = +1.71 V, max = +1.89 V) ALARM
> +3.3V: +3.25 V (min = +3.14 V, max = +3.47 V)
> +5V: +4.97 V (min = +4.76 V, max = +5.24 V)
> +12V: +12.04 V (min = +10.82 V, max = +13.19 V)
> -12V: -11.87 V (min = -13.18 V, max = -10.80 V)
> -5V: +3.49 V (min = -5.25 V, max = -4.75 V) ALARM
> V5SB: +5.43 V (min = +4.76 V, max = +5.24 V) ALARM
> VBat: +3.54 V (min = +2.40 V, max = +3.60 V)
> fan1: 0 RPM (min = 10546 RPM, div = 2) ALARM
> fan2: 2311 RPM (min = 1662 RPM, div = 4)
> temp1: +100 F (high = +212 F, hyst = +32 F) sensor = thermistor
> temp2: +129.2 F (high = +176 F, hyst = +167 F) sensor = thermistor
> alarms: Chassis intrusion detection ALARM
> beep_enable:
> Sound alarm enabled
>
> My detailed computer specifications can be found here: http://alpha.zimage.com/~ant/antfarm.../computers.txt
> (secondary/backup computer). I also tried not to have too much stuff in my PC case. The only extra thing is I
> have is NIC since I don't trust the onboard VIA NIC.
>
> Thank you in advance.

You might also want to look at some of the mini-itx boards put out by via
- very low power consumption.

The Natural Philosopher (a@b.c) writes:
> Bit Twister wrote:
>> On 1 Nov 2006 00:31:48 GMT, Michael Black wrote:
>>> But along the lines of the other poster, 350watts is only a bit more than
>>> 3 100watt bulbs. Turn off three 100 watt bulbs (or reduce their wattage,
>>> such as the move to compact flourescent), and you've got your savings.
>>
>> Yep, also flourescent run cooler so less cooling required.
>>
>>
> ITS *FLUORESCENT* fer chrissakes.

Wow.

That was a typo on my part, I do know the spelling, even without
looking it up.

Michael

In article <v4CdndxfQZjGV9rYnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@mminternet.net >,
<ANTant@zimage.com> wrote:
>Ah, darn. I thought my box would be hogging a lot since it uses a 350
>watts PSU. Not sure how many watts my box
>goes up to when in idled and heavy usage (e.g., compilation, Google
>Earth, etc.).

350W is just the maximum the power supply can deliver. If the motherboard,
hard drives, etc. were actually pulling that much power, the load at the
wall outlet would be even higher because power supplies aren't 100%
efficient.

That said, the average desktop PC isn't going to draw anywhere near full
load. To put it in perspective, I once measured current draw on a 5.4-TB
rackmount server to figure out the power requirements for an installation.
Each server had sixteen 400-GB SATA hard drives in RAID-5, a smaller PATA
drive as the boot device, and a pair of Opterons. Power came from three
350W power supplies in a hot-swappable RPS configuration. While the hard
drives were spinning up, current draw (measured at the wall outlet by
stripping some of the outer jacket from a power cord and hooking a clamp-on
ammeter around the live wire) was about 3.6 amps. Once the server was up
and running, it fell to maybe two-thirds of that.

That's less than 300 watts for a dual-processor box with 17 hard drives.
I would be surprised if the average single-processor PC with one or two
drives needs much more than 100 watts once it's running. Spinning up the
hard drive will briefly take a little more power, but that only takes a few
seconds.

_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

In comp.os.linux.hardware Giovanni <lsodgf0@home.net.it> wrote:
> ANTant@zimage.com wrote:

> > Yep, done this too with windows, blinds and curtains, opening windows at nights/during cooler
> > days, etc. Only summer times and heat waves are the bad ones. Even added extra shades to over
> > windows.

> Adding curtains over your Windows is always a good idea ;-)

It's called screen savers, man. [grin]
--
"The ants sought personal revenge for my having sprayed them the day before." --Oliver Smith
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phillip (Ant) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Please remove ANT if replying by e-mail.
( )

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.hardware, in article
<A4KdnUX52_OwIdrYnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@mminternet.net >, ANTant@zimage.com wrote:

>Electricity is sure getting expensive these days, especially during the summer
time ($500 per month!). I would
>like to see if I can keep my little 24 hours/7 days Linux desktop/workstation
(also acts like a private server,
>so I can ssh/VNC in from outside) from using a lot of power/electrcity when in
idled mode. Currently, I told
>xscreensaver (using xmatrix at slow rate -- loved the first two Matrix
movies!) to put my monitor to sleep and
>shut down after an hour and two hours. I do not use those 3D screen savers
since they hog my 3D card and CPU, and
>my room gets too warm easily.

[Fix your newsreader and cut those lines down below 80 characters.]

Sweet mother of... Phillip, you're in the LA Basin, right? Start by
calling your utility company (SoCal Edison?) and talking to them about
other rate plans. Here in Phoenix, I have a choice of four, and there is
a _substantial_ difference in the bottom line for a given amount of power
each month. For me, a 'peak+demand/off-peak' rate saves me about 20% over
the next best plan (and over 70% over the worst one). Then look at your
power usage and those billing plans, and compare how you would be billed.
You may also want to change some usage habits based on differing costs.

Grab a pad and pencil, and walk around your house and see what consumes
power. The biggies are usually lighting, heating/cooling, appliances,
computers, and other junk in that rough order. Write down the power used
by each item, and note which is used and for how much. Where is the power
going? Simple conservation measures - others have already mentioned the
compact fluorescent lamps, curtains/drapes, insulation - that can make a
far larger chunk than anything you can do with a common PC and CRT type
monitor. We're not home during the day very often, so the water heater
is on a timer and only runs off-peak when (for me) electricity is 40%
cheaper. The pool filter is also on a timer, and runs at 22:00-04:00 each
night. The air conditioning (7 Tons or 84,000 BTU of central air/heat
pump) is run from programmable thermostats. Do not be ridiculous with the
temperature plan - letting the house get up to 90F during the day, and
expecting the A/C to be able to pull it down to 75F at 16:30 is likely to
cost _more_ because it's harder to cool at that time of day.

As for computers, CRT type displays in use are _usually_ the biggy. I've
got three attached to computers, but only one runs more than an hour a
week. LCD displays are far more energy efficient. I only keep four systems
running 24/7 - the firewall (what's left of an ancient 386SX lap-dog, sans
keyboard and display), two workstations, and the fileserver (a 486SX-33 that
runs headless). Those four average under 200 VA, or 4.8 KWH a day - and at
"last kilowatt-hour" rates, that's costing me 26.5 cents a day. There are
three other systems, but they are run sparingly. As a guess, my total
computer related energy bill (including cooling in high summer) is under
$120 a year. I used to spend that much on backup tapes.

Old guy

[snipped]

> You might also want to look at some of the mini-itx boards put out by via
> - very low power consumption.

Thanks for the tip.

That probably won't happen since I tend to reuse my motherboards, RAM, video cards (NVIDIA),
and other parts that used to be my gaming machine.
--
"The ants sought personal revenge for my having sprayed them the day before." --Oliver Smith
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phillip (Ant) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Please remove ANT if replying by e-mail.
( )

Scott Alfter wrote:
> In article <v4CdndxfQZjGV9rYnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@mminternet.net >,
> <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote:
>> Ah, darn. I thought my box would be hogging a lot since it uses a 350
>> watts PSU. Not sure how many watts my box
>> goes up to when in idled and heavy usage (e.g., compilation, Google
>> Earth, etc.).
>
> 350W is just the maximum the power supply can deliver. If the motherboard,
> hard drives, etc. were actually pulling that much power, the load at the
> wall outlet would be even higher because power supplies aren't 100%
> efficient.
>
> That said, the average desktop PC isn't going to draw anywhere near full
> load. To put it in perspective, I once measured current draw on a 5.4-TB
> rackmount server to figure out the power requirements for an installation.
> Each server had sixteen 400-GB SATA hard drives in RAID-5, a smaller PATA
> drive as the boot device, and a pair of Opterons. Power came from three
> 350W power supplies in a hot-swappable RPS configuration. While the hard
> drives were spinning up, current draw (measured at the wall outlet by
> stripping some of the outer jacket from a power cord and hooking a clamp-on
> ammeter around the live wire) was about 3.6 amps. Once the server was up
> and running, it fell to maybe two-thirds of that.
>
> That's less than 300 watts for a dual-processor box with 17 hard drives.
> I would be surprised if the average single-processor PC with one or two
> drives needs much more than 100 watts once it's running. Spinning up the
> hard drive will briefly take a little more power, but that only takes a few
> seconds.
>
Depends what you have. I have a 660 Watt power supply that claims to run
around 70% efficiency, so if I took full power from that, it would draw
almost 950 watts. I have a 2200 VA (about 1600 watts) UPS that reads me the
actual load of about 25%, or about 400 watts. This is a dual hyperthreaded
machine with 3.06 Xeon processors in it, each of which draws about 90 watts.
I have only 6 hard drives in it.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 16:45:01 up 11 days, 19:12, 3 users, load average: 4.38, 4.34, 4.18

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:57:56 -0800, Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:




>On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, AZ Nomad wrote:

>> On 31 Oct 2006 21:54:30 GMT, Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>>> Shut off your screen. It draws the most power. And for remote access you or
>> Unless you're running a screen from the black'n'white era, it will go into
>> standby mode anytime it doesn't receive a video signal, typically a single watt
>> of power.

>Actually, there was an article earlier this year about how many common
>household devices use significant power when in standby mode.

So?

Giovanni wrote:
> ANTant@zimage.com wrote:
>
>> Yep, done this too with windows, blinds and curtains, opening windows
>> at nights/during cooler days, etc. Only summer times and heat waves
>> are the bad ones. Even added extra shades to over windows.
>
> Adding curtains over your Windows is always a good idea ;-)
>

I hadn't appercauited that. Yup. Tell bill gates

"Its CURTAINS FOR WINDOWS"

That ought to be the Linux rallying cry..