Re: [OT] Hard Drive Energy Not Worth Conserving
Phil Requirements put forth on 1/9/2011 5:53 PM:
> 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(
No problem Phil. I likely overreacted, and was a bit too defensive. :) I stand
behind the technical points I made, though I too could have worded my response
better, in a manner void of breathing fire. ;)
--
Stan
Reply to: