locked
Tree Huggers - watch out - what's your footprint ? RRS feed

All replies

  •  

    I am interested in checking this,  as i have just set up a HP Proliant server with AMD Opteron Dual Core 1210 CPU and 4 HDD's.  Although to be honest their is not much i can do about it if it high due to funds and the fact the HP is new with warrenty. 

     

    I will monitor this thread and soon post feed back for my system.

    Saturday, November 17, 2007 5:48 PM
  • Just bear in mind that real footprint includes the energy used in the manufacturing process of a typical home PC is 83% of the total energy used during a 3 year life cycle.  That means if you buy a new PC for WHS it could be extremely false economy as far as the carbon footprint.  Most of my WHS was rescued from the land fill.

     

    Saturday, November 17, 2007 10:25 PM
  • This has been discussed in, among others, "Want to build a "green" WHS", and, by some builders, in "What's in your server?".

     

    My machine is running at 70 Watts +/- with the GA-MA69GM-S2H board running a BE-2350, 2GB of PC2-6400, a LiteOn SATA DVD burner and 3x WD Caviar GP 1TB drives. The power factor is just over 0.5 so it's pulling just shy of 140 VA using the stock p/s in a ASUS TM-210 case. (That would be a 300 W Delta Electronics p/n GPS-350AB.) I have since replaced the standard 80mm case fan with an Antec SmartCool 92mm fan for noise reasons, but have not revisited power consumption. I suspect the fan has made no signficant difference.

     

    I could have used a different motherboard, different CPU, slower/less memory, and unplugged the optical drive to save maybe as much as 10 Watts. A PFC supply would have been nice for carbon footprint. If that supply was of lower capacity--closer to the requirement--and higher efficiency, that would have been good for power consumption as well. But power consumption/carbon footprint was not the only variable I was solving for.


    Likewise, Microsoft could have done more to design WHS to minimize power consumption like spinning down drives and running CPUs at quasi-sleep power levels. I want my server seamlessly available 24x7. I don't need it at full instantaneous capability 24x7. Of course, they've already spent 15 years trying to get power managemetn at the OS level to work. From what I see on my Vista machines, they still aren't there. For one reason or another--probably application software and drivers that don't work and play well with power management--they only sleep correctly and automatically about half the time.

    Monday, November 19, 2007 8:01 PM