If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Sleep vs. Shutdown
On Thu, 01 Sep 2016 09:47:26 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
wrote: Personally, I think that - for average PCs at least - you are more likely to replace the device because of its obsolescence long before any damage (from restarts or keeping it running) accrues to the point of noticability. I agree with that. Both sides have their pros and cons so there's no clear winner that everyone should adopt. I leave 3 machines on 24/7 because I use them frequently, but other machines that are used much less often are normally powered down. I tend to shut down if I know I'm not going to use the computer for some hours (overnight) and otherwise just lock it (running but with a password) or let it sleep. I schedule a full shutdown/restart of all my Windows computers once a week though because, well, it's Windows ;-) I used to try quite hard to wrap up every loose end so that I could reboot my laptop every month, but that has slowly crept up to 6 weeks and then 8 weeks and then beyond 8 weeks. Earlier this week, I came back to the laptop to find that it had rebooted on its own, which was a first for this machine, so now I figure 9-10 weeks is about the limit (with only one data point so far) to how far I can go between reboots, given the way that I use this machine. My desktop machine, which is used in a server role, gets rebooted when the power goes out, which is once or twice a year. If I were to put that PC on a UPS, I suppose it would just run 'forever', or until I need to make some kind of hardware change/upgrade. I remember having to boot 95/98 daily to keep them stable, but those days seem to be long gone. XP was the first WinOS where I started going a week or three between reboots, and even then most reboots were necessitated by installing some kind of Win update. -- Char Jackson |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Sleep vs. Shutdown
Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2016 09:47:26 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson wrote: Personally, I think that - for average PCs at least - you are more likely to replace the device because of its obsolescence long before any damage (from restarts or keeping it running) accrues to the point of noticability. I agree with that. Both sides have their pros and cons so there's no clear winner that everyone should adopt. I leave 3 machines on 24/7 because I use them frequently, but other machines that are used much less often are normally powered down. I think there is a clear winner. With the right component selection for your computer build, shutting it down is the right answer. 80+ power supply - Active PFC functions as inrush limiter - reduces stress on main cap (older designs used a PTC resistor for inrush limiting, with designs easily drawing 40 amps for a cycle or two, at 120V. That's what makes the lights blink in your computer room) SSD - hibernation with a small set of applications open, only uses a couple gigabytes of writes. Your SSD has a 150TBW rating. Even if an average day has 20GB of writes (18GB for web surfing, 2GB for hibernate), you have a 150000/20 = 7500 day rating. Rotating hard drives are rated for 300,000 head load/unload cycles. Plenty for shutdown and startup. There is no question, in a powered state, it is ready immediately for usage. So there is the convenience factor. But in terms of hardware issues, I think with modern hardware installed, there's no reason to leave the power on. Paul |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Sleep vs. Shutdown
On Thu, 01 Sep 2016 13:46:19 -0400, Paul wrote:
Char Jackson wrote: On Thu, 01 Sep 2016 09:47:26 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson wrote: Personally, I think that - for average PCs at least - you are more likely to replace the device because of its obsolescence long before any damage (from restarts or keeping it running) accrues to the point of noticability. I agree with that. Both sides have their pros and cons so there's no clear winner that everyone should adopt. I leave 3 machines on 24/7 because I use them frequently, but other machines that are used much less often are normally powered down. I think there is a clear winner. With the right component selection for your computer build, shutting it down is the right answer. 80+ power supply - Active PFC functions as inrush limiter - reduces stress on main cap (older designs used a PTC resistor for inrush limiting, with designs easily drawing 40 amps for a cycle or two, at 120V. That's what makes the lights blink in your computer room) SSD - hibernation with a small set of applications open, only uses a couple gigabytes of writes. Your SSD has a 150TBW rating. Even if an average day has 20GB of writes (18GB for web surfing, 2GB for hibernate), you have a 150000/20 = 7500 day rating. Rotating hard drives are rated for 300,000 head load/unload cycles. Plenty for shutdown and startup. There is no question, in a powered state, it is ready immediately for usage. So there is the convenience factor. But in terms of hardware issues, I think with modern hardware installed, there's no reason to leave the power on. With all due respect, Paul, I think you just made a case for "no clear winner". If you use a machine regularly, leave it on. If you use it infrequently, turn it off. With that as guidance, there's still a gray area between them that's a mile wide, so no clear winner at all. -- Char Jackson |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Sleep vs. Shutdown
Paul wrote:
.... There is no question, in a powered state, it is ready immediately for usage. So there is the convenience factor. But in terms of hardware issues, I think with modern hardware installed, there's no reason to leave the power on. ....plus there's the energy saving... |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Sleep vs. Shutdown
In message , Spalls
Hurgenson writes: [] You are correct. I was thinking of the "hybrid shutdown" that became the default shutdown for Win8+. This is essentially a hibernation mode but - assuming your hardware supports it - allows Windows to bypass the hardware power-up tests. That's why Win8+ boots so much faster than Win7. [] What are there "hardware power-up tests"? How long _do_ they take? (Unless you've got a lightning-boot, I can't see them making _that_ much difference to boot time - they certainly wouldn't to me, I don't _think_ - but then some modern systems _do_ boot very fast.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change [via Penny Mayes )] |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Sleep vs. Shutdown
In message , masonc
writes: On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 16:02:54 -0400, SteveGG wrote: What's the relative merits of these states for an inactive PC ? How inactive - I mean, how often do you turn it on (or rather come out of the inactive state)? Sleep appears to have some function of the CPU active but Shutdown is more thorough and involved. Opinions ? Especially, what is best for the life of the computer, especially the moving parts? By "moving parts", I assume you mean intentionally-moving, which I can only think of as meaning disc drives and fans, rather than parts flexing as they warm up and cool down (and the - mostly infinitesimal, but repeated many times - movements of transformer cores, both in normal operation at their switching frequency, and occasionally larger as the load changes significantly). Disc drives have two things that move - the platters rotate, and the heads move in and out (including moving out altogether - or to their park zone - when told to do so). For any recent PC, I get the impression that both fans and disc drives stop altogether in sleep mode, so there's no difference. It is possible that some systems, especially in hot environments, might power up the fans very occasionally when in sleep, though IMO if that's happening you need to look at your arrangements anyway. As for powering down versus hibernate, sleep, or leaving fully on in general, I think Paul's right, for modern equipment you're far more likely to replace it due to obsolescence rather than failure. Paul, Spalls, and Char have covered other aspects: basically, powering up (from cold or one of the rest states) puts _some_ stress on some components (current surges and temperature fluctuations [which flex things like connections, especially those inside components]), leaving running all the time puts other stresses, probably mainly on fans and drives but also hot components like the processor and graphics. A complete shutdown causes the macvhine to "run better" (after startup of course!), at the expense of the time you have to spend waiting for it to boot. The various shutdown modes (including off completely) _do_ use less energy, to two levels if your habitat is cooled anyway (when on they both use more energy themselves, and produce heat thus making your aircon have to work harder); conversely, if your home is being heated, the heat they produce means your heating has to work _less_ hard; however, in both cases, the effect is so minuscule as to probably be insignificant, for those of us fortunate enough to live in the western world anyway. (Do you go round unplugging TVs, hifis, 'phone chargers, your home heating controls such as the timeclock, ...) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change [via Penny Mayes )] |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Sleep vs. Shutdown
Insignificant !
Figure it out. How long to use only 1 KWH ? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Sleep vs. Shutdown
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Spalls Hurgenson writes: [] You are correct. I was thinking of the "hybrid shutdown" that became the default shutdown for Win8+. This is essentially a hibernation mode but - assuming your hardware supports it - allows Windows to bypass the hardware power-up tests. That's why Win8+ boots so much faster than Win7. [] What are there "hardware power-up tests"? When PNP OS is set to No, the BIOS plans the memory map, and sets the address decoding according to all the equipment installed in the computer. The chipset has to be programmed so every piece of hardware lives at a unique address. And the memory controller has to be set according to the size of the RAM modules and so on. The BIOS can do a quick RAM Test. The BIOS can zero the RAM before the OS gets it. The BIOS waits up to 35 seconds for disks to spin up and obtains the text ID string from them. You can see this info in the popup boot menu. On computers where the "monitor SMART" setting is enabled, the BIOS reads the SMART on each drive, and issues a warning if any thresholds have been surpassed (too many reallocated sectors). The BIOS does not do a fully structured test like that $50 box of software you bought at the computer store. Some computers have a switch setting that triggers the manufacturer test. That tests the response of the keyboard, and does all sorts of tests. Such a test could take 20 minutes. (Sun Computers was the best at doing that sort of test. The tests actually did something and weren't pure window dressing.) You don't want the BIOS implementing such a feature for consumers ("it would only confuse them"). Everything the BIOS does is "fast", relatively speaking. A 20 minute test, that should be saved for that $50 box of software while the OS is running. This is one of the reasons that a decent RAM Test is gradually disappearing from BIOS designs. One way or another, the BIOS is just too fast, to actually be doing something like that any more. If any traditional behavior doesn't scale well in new computers, it's just tossed on the side of the road. I'm really surprised that "PNP OS = No" is the default, as I'm sure the OS people would love to do all the BIOS work themselves :-) The Insyde BIOS in my Acer laptop starts in only a couple seconds, and it's not even clear whether it waits for anything. Insyde is a relative newcomer to writing BIOS for computers, so they're not saddled with any "traditions". But they do still have to handle the default "PNP OS = No" thing, and program the chipset properly before handoff. That would include passing hardware-specific ACPI tables to the OS. (Like the SLIC table that tells the OS it's an Acer, and it's OK to boot an Acer-stamped royalty OS.) ******* In the above description, the things done is a function of ACPI state. The above might be appropriate for restoration from S5. But the activities done in S3 or S4 could be different. And I'm not going to do all the combinations, because I'll only get it wrong. It's not even clear who is responsible in the other ACPI states, for setting things up. (Recorded in hiberfil.sys, rediscovered by BIOS ???) Paul |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Sleep vs. Shutdown
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Paul, Spalls, and Char have covered other aspects: basically, powering up (from cold or one of the rest states) puts _some_ stress on some components This is becoming less and less with time. I have no concerns about turning my Test Computer on and off multiple times a day. S5 Soft Off for example, is not stressful. And flipping the switch on the back is safe, as long as you wait at least 30 seconds from switch off to switch on again. Do not rapidly toggle the AC switch on the back. A guy in one of the newsgroups, blew an ATX supply by "toggling the switch 50 times". Well, somebody had to test that... ******* I've had ATX power supplies fail here, but upon opening them, you can see the "leaking cap" problem. And that's just bad chemistry at the factory (pH is wrong for one thing). The full story is covered here of how it happened. The chemical will eat through the aluminum outer shell, even with zero stress applied (supply sitting in storage room, unpowered). On my Antec, it took less than two years in storage for that to happen. I had the orange goo and everything, just like the picture here. The four +5V caps were bad. No amount of "babying it" would have saved it. It would have been dead in two years anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague Paul |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|