Re: [OT] Hard Drive Energy Not Worth Conserving
On 2011-01-09 15:37:41 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> 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
>
> FULL STOP.
>
> 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
<snip>
Hi Stan,
I was surpised that you reacted so strongly, so I went back and read
what was originally written, and how I responded. I can now see why my
comments were offensive, and so I want to apologize completely. I'm
sorry that I made the off-topic and unfair comments and couched it in
terms of faulty logic.
I think I was predisposed to see your argument incorrectly, and with
the volume of the mailing list I was probably reading too quickly. I
can now see your point, that energy savings alone are not reason
enough to pursue a certain hard drive, especially if that hard drive
has problems under Linux. And that if one needs energy savings, it
would be better to look at the processor than a hard drive that might
cause problems.
I usually try very hard to stick to the topics at hand. On this one I
went out on a limb and fell off. I think I didn't have an adequate
breakfast.
Sorry,
Phil :c(
Reply to: