Re: [OT] Hard Drive Energy Not Worth Conserving drives?
Phil Requirements put forth on 1/9/2011 12:48 PM:
> On 2011-01-09 08:02:05 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> If one is so power consumption conscious to be suckered into a Green
>> (EARS) drive, then one needs to realize the CPU dissipates about 10
>> times the wattage/heat of a hard drive. Thus, concentrate your power
>> saving efforts elsewhere than the disk drive. Buy a non "green" drive,
>> and save yourself these sector alignment/performance headaches.
> I just wanted to mention that this is a type of faulty logic that
My logic is not faulty in the least bit, and your examples below are a
bunch of crap. Here's why: all of the excuses you list below are just
that: excuses people give as to why they don't want to use CFLs, etc.
Each phantom person you list is passing the buck to an entity that
everyone knows isn't going to change.
> we run into all the time when trying to conserve energy. The idea
> that if a second thing can conserve more energy than the first, then
> we do not need to conserve energy in the first thing.
This is _NOT_ what I did when I said concentrate on the CPU power
dissipation first, then worry about the HD. I was not passing the buck.
There is a _HUGE_ difference.
As far as my logic being faulty? Since you're so fond of analogy,
here's a much more applicable one for you: if your carotid artery has
been slashed and you're bleeding to death, you need to address that
before addressing your bleeding hang nail. Once your life is saved, fix
the hang nail. It's simply a matter of priorities, and one should
address the larger concern first.
CPU power dissipation in modern CPUs ranges from around 45 to 135 watts
under full load. The most power hungry of modern hard drives max out at
around 10 watts under heavy seek loads, a ratio of 4:1 to 13:1.
Now, compare a WD Green drive's power consumption in all modes against a
Blue drive. The differences are insignificant compared to the amount of
power you can save by making sure your system is optimized to keep CPU
consumption at a minimum. PRIORITIZE your efforts to maximize gain.
Now, with all of that said, the assumption is that in this discussion
thread we're focusing on desktop computers with one or two drives, since
most folks on debian-users are desktop/laptop users, not SAs. If this
were a list full of SAs my statements would likely be different WRT disk
power consumption, as SAs are are typically managing large disk arrays,
and many of them, whose power consumption can rival, or exceed, that of
server CPUs. For "online" storage systems you can't enable per drive
power saving features, as the arrays are under constant access. For
"near line" arrays, such as tape replacement D2D backup systems and the
like, or database systems that's aren't accessed much from 7pm to 7am,
you can deep sleep the drives when the system isn't doing much.
<bunch of nonsense analogies snipped)
> Anyway, nothing personal or angry.
Well, yeah, you did make it personal when you called my logic faulty,
when it is absolutely right on the money.
> I just wanted to mention that I seed
> this as a logic fault,
This is because of your liberal political leanings, which have no place
here. This is a technical discussion list, so keep it technical.
> and it particularly happens around energy
> conservation. My own opinion is that you should get energy savings
> everywhere you can.
Key words: "my opinion" You're stating opinion.
I'm stating sound technical policies and backing them with technical
detail and logical reasoning.
Your goals are laudable. I offer you a bit of advice:
1. Start with the big stuff and the little stuff takes care of itself.
I'm sure your grandmother has told you at least once, "Save your
dollars and the pennies take care of themselves." Save thing. It was
good advice when she gave it to you, and it's good advice today.
2. Don't be a zealot, which is what you've done here.
3. Don't call out perfectly reasoned, logical, technical advice, as
"faulty" simply because it doesn't fit in your personal political belief
> There is a separate point to argue about whether Western Digital
> hard drives are really "Green" because they use less energy, or
> if WD is using the term "Green" to market and sell inferior
As with all products, it's a little of both. They do use less energy,
if you don't use them. But you buys a drive to not use it? Regardless,
my argument against the Green drives still stands on solid technical
feet, no matter how much _less_ power they use than other drives. The
total power consumption compared to other components is too small to
worry about, unless/until you address the others.