[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Fwd: Retiring the sparc32 port

And a single point of failure?

On 19/07/07, andrew holway < andrew@moonet.co.uk> 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.


On 19/07/07, Mark Morgan Lloyd <markMLl.debian-sparc@telemetry.co.uk > 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 debian-sparc-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: