From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1IBBoV-0000wJ-2f for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:51:43 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l6IFnltx029200; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:49:47 GMT Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.176]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l6IFilFu023699 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:44:47 GMT Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id d32so524220pye for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:44:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=uIq9/uzQCkRlQpH+MZpVuOT4Vn1R7bwBbabFkhMlF62uii9XRlVr/QX+S7uheba6EBJvVHKPibABzyyR11/abwLU9j3FCqbf994Tky5OLLZB2rebQ1u2LXdhb7XJvR7M36Be8eFN64P7xvWW+aXFRlGOOTFpcTTM5mMl2m+0KvA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ND0/HFLW5u6hUTXwiWy3IMLnv002+/usCBx6Sq9EVPnxZlPgvoiQSiYnwDPlBip+YKgkRIRFx9WhcLhdKYxvz32Cx8aT5kiHnN4BbljBlLqcIRmB5z3HkEndgsNx+Ti5PfjOxC5d0L7Q3d+KFu8FhVoWawtjz6YNKu65rS2zsY8= Received: by 10.35.82.16 with SMTP id j16mr2759845pyl.1184773486396; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:44:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.94.15 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:44:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <64e8d2f20707180844o253d5043j6bc4150d487a7a17@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:44:46 -0400 From: "Ryan Sims" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Linux becomes expensive ;) In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200706021955.27607.f.philipp@addcom.de> <200706031824.52213.f.philipp@addcom.de> <64e8d2f20706031006w4fcc6053u90163d6153208430@mail.gmail.com> <200706031937.22522.f.philipp@addcom.de> <20070603124921.257cb28a@pascal.spore.ath.cx> X-Archives-Salt: 2c220d30-ecb9-4edd-8aab-f73845f3d539 X-Archives-Hash: 55bc136513a96f5cfc419a65873755ec On 7/18/07, Hendrik Boom wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:49:21 -0500, Dan Farrell wrote: > > > it takes just as much power to > > spin up the drive as to keep it spinning for a few extra minutes. > > So ... spin it down after a few more minutes? > > -- hendrik No, only spin it down when the savings from the down cycle outweigh the power cost of spinup+spindown (I don't know whether spindown uses extra power, to "brake" the drive or anything). Say you have a drive that uses 1W/m (huge, but I'm being merciful to my math skills) while in usage, and requires 5W to spinup. If you're going to shut it down for 1m, you're looking at saving 1W and using 5, net use of 4, when leaving it spinning would only use 1. However, if it's going to be inactive for 30 min, you're using 5 and saving 30, net savings of 25. -- Ryan W Sims -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list