locked
Power usage, how low can we go? RRS feed

  • Question

  • The WHS software really surprised me in its functionality. There is a lot of really useful stuff in it that makes it a true Home Server. Now, my current "home server" is the Freecom FSG-3, which has about all of the functionality of WHS. It does however not support the XBOX 360 fully and it does not incorporate a true Backup mechanism. Oh, and it runs Linux... But, ... it uses at most 20 Watts.My WHS runs on a low power Celeron 2.13MHz SFF platform and consumes 90 Watts easily.

    Now, assuming that your WHS will run day and night this is a bad story for the environment. Except when you run it from solar panels of course. Anyway, to get to my point. Does anyone succesfully run this on a real low-power box? Did anyone try a NEC C7 or Sempron on a  Mini ITX? How low can we go with WHS?

    Sunday, April 22, 2007 8:20 PM

All replies

  • I was going to ask a similar question.

    I recently read an article about properly utilizing the S3 standby mode.

    http://www.exoid.com/?p=29

    It even addresses systems that are required to be "always on". 

    Maybe this can really help you out.  I will be trying it on my WHS however I have a feeling the computer may not support S3 at all.  Its a little bit of an older system.  But if it does we may have something here.
    Sunday, April 22, 2007 11:26 PM
  • I think all but the "extreme" of the newer Core2 or AMD platforms draw 65w or less. Even with dual core, 2x FSB, and 10-20x L2 cache, this is still about 10w less than your Celeron. Combined with Speedstep type technology and the situation is much better today than even a year ago.

     

    Though they aren't currently very available to home builders, the mobile variants are showing up more often in OEM desktop builds. These are about half the draw of the existing desktop processors and there are variants on the horizon that half that again.

     

    I think this is an area that few have given much attention to particularly as it affects the total cost of ownership. The OEMs haven't done a good job either educating the public otherwise, nobody would buy a Pentium D when they could get a Core2 for $20 more.

    Monday, April 23, 2007 12:09 AM
  • Ah, now you're talking. I know and use S3 a lot for my Media Center. I always assumed you needed the "difficult" Wake-up frame to wake a Wake-On-Lan machine. The WHS and most of my PC's fully support S3, so I will start experimenting with this recipe. Great! It makes it all the more realistic to really start using WHS.
    Monday, April 23, 2007 7:05 AM
  • When I noted the 90W power usage, it was the power consumption of the whole box. Not just the CPU. I use a power measurement appliance to keep a tap on all my PC's for this.

    On the whole, using (Mobile) Core2 and all related hardware is probably a good direction for WHS because it will provide the computing power needed for the Windows Server 2003 core of WHS and on the other side really doze off solidly when there is no need for its services.

    Does anyone run WHS on a laptop or another "laptop technology based" device and is able to give power consumption numbers?

    Monday, April 23, 2007 7:14 AM
  • I currently am using a via c3 processor using roughly 13 watts of power! 

    Not the speediest machine but because of the low power requirements I do not mind leaving it on all the time.

     

     

    Monday, April 23, 2007 8:26 PM
  • I am also using a via-c3 (samuel 700mhz).  Fanless with a 200watt p/s. 1 seagate drive.  Not sure how to go lower than that!
    Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:01 AM
  • Using my Kill-A-Watt meter, I'm at 52 watts idle, 72-74 watts system being used. AMD 64 3800+ low power version, two hard drives, 1 GB memory (two sticks), two 120mm fans, 330 watt SeaSonic S12 power supply.

     

    Hard drives always on.

     

    If I set hard drives to spin down on idle, I would be at about 34 watts idle.

     

    I've decided that 18 watts is worth (hopefully) greater hard drive reliability with no spin up/spin down. I may reconsider this once I have many more drives in system (i.e. eight hard drives spinning 24 x 7 at 10-11 watts per drive is different than two spinning 24 x 7).

     

    But believe me, living in the San Diego area where my next KW of electricity is about $0.24 (yes, twenty four cents with all the fees and taxes) I have tried to build an efficient WHS box.

     

    Charlie

    Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:13 AM
  • Hey Guys,

    I tried the stuff about S3 in the article I posted above.  I don't think this will work for home server because the computer keeps waking back up.

    I think it is because the home server clients are continuously communicating with the home server.  This keeps the computer awake.

    I think we just have to settle with more efficient computers.

    Wednesday, April 25, 2007 4:50 AM
  • Same here, unfortunately. I will try to investigate this further. For the moment C3 systems seem to be winning. I wonder if the uPNP media sharing feature can be handled by these slower processors. Did anyone hook up his media streamer/XBOX 360 to a C3 fanless system?
    Wednesday, April 25, 2007 6:58 AM
  • Interesting discussion ... came to the forum precisely to find out about this.

    My personal situation is that I am using a recently decommissioned Shuttle box to test WHS. My primary hope for it is to have an extremely solid backup solution covering my MCE, "main" home PC and work laptop (rather than the current spider's web of USB drives, NAS, SyncbackSE, shared drives, etc.) and everything else is nice to have.

    To this end (and because the Shuttle is pretty noisy and (I suspect) not particularly power-efficient) it would be useful to me if, say, WHS could auto-power up at 1:00 in the morning and then operate until 6:00 before shutting down.

    Anyone know if this is possible (I have an inkling that it isn't as this is supposed to be a Server solution!)?
    Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:25 AM
  • You could get it to power up and run for a specified period of time in theory with WOL, and scheduler BUT you are pushing the chance that your system may not resume from standby, may run into an issue and hang with a user dialog or may not complete the backup in the specified period of time.

    I still working out the kinks on my network trying to decide what machine is going to be the WHS, the Linux box, the test rig and so on.

    I should have most of that decided tonight and hopefulyl have WHS up and at the very least loading.
    Wednesday, April 25, 2007 4:57 PM
  • Funny! After a short discussion with someone at work I suddenly remembered about using a batch file to soft shutdown the server and a wake on lan to resurrect it. I think my motherboard supports it but need to check that out tonight. Could be a (messy) solution.

    As the backups are configured to run between midnight and 6am (by default) I hope that if I wake and shut it down 15 minutes either side then the backups should have completed. What happens if it is a particularly long backup and does not complete by the stated time? Does it curtail the backup gracefully or carry on until done?
    Wednesday, April 25, 2007 5:59 PM
  • I think it will stop the backup but the backup will be marked as failed.  So you will be out of date by one backup.

    Keep in mind too that depending on how many machines you may run into the situation where it will run outside of the window because they do not backup at the same time.  They all get "chained".

    However after the initial backup every backup after that is incremental so should be fast as well.

    Now that I think of it 12-6 should be perfectly fine.

    Everytime I installed home server and the connector I've always initiated an initial manual backup to get that out of the way. 

    Wednesday, April 25, 2007 6:16 PM
  • I've just run my first incremental backup of my main PC ... 5 minutes. Admittedly it wasn't used for much in between but even so!

     

    I think 6 hours will be ample. 3 may even do it.

     

    Need to do some testing!

    Wednesday, April 25, 2007 7:33 PM
  • Wrapping up this discussion and having experimented a lot I think it is safe to say that all hope for environmentally friendly use of WHS is based on the power of low-power computing power. Some of you have succesfully run this even on (mini-itx?) C3 (fanless?) system. This gives you low power usage, probably in the 10-25 Watts range. I think that is acceptible, wheather these systems will support strong uPNP media streaming remains to be seen. Also, I think you must be carefull, because these mini systems with large (RAID?) hard disk arrangements will start using more power and can overheat.

    An alternative is to put more power into the box and have it Hibernate or Standby with Wake-On-Lan. From my own experiments this is only realistic when you have a router that supports sending the real Wake-On-Lan frame. Anything else will only result in WHS switch to standby and switch on again immediately or 15 minutes later. This probably is the result of overactive routers or other broadcasting processes, even on a simple home network.

    Friday, April 27, 2007 12:59 PM
  • BTW, my tests were successful. Once I enabled Wake On Lan in my Shuttle's BIOS, the freeware CLI WOL tool from http://www.simply-ware.com/download.htm reliably wakes up the Server. I invoke a one-line batch file just before 1am from my Media Centre and have a shutdown task execute on the server just after 5am and change the backup schedule to 1-5am.

    And for now it is doing what I want and only consuming power (and generating noise) for four hours in the middle of the night!
    Monday, April 30, 2007 2:45 PM
  • I "discovered" something for myself that made me think about this thread. In shopping for a power supply, I ran across an Antec product called "Earthwatts" that claimed to meet the requirements of an initiative called 80 plus (http://www.80plus.org/) which targets an 80% efficiency for power supplies. It claims to be able to save about $70 in electricity costs over its life, not bad considering it is pretty price competitive with other 60% efficient PSUs.
    Thursday, May 24, 2007 6:41 PM
  • I have a friend that cannot speak highly enough of the EA 500. His only complaint is that there are only 4 SATA connectorsconenctors.
    Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:16 PM
  • Some MBs support a "wake at" feature, but to be honest I've never tried it. http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/shutcut.php has some info on command line stuff for shutdown, which could run as a scheduled batch file.

     

    I often use TSShutdown to shutdown machines that I am connected to with RDP.

     

     

    Gordon

     

     

    Gordon

    Friday, May 25, 2007 11:02 AM
  • Well waking up and sleeping at regular intervals is fine, if it matches your backup schema. Probably for a system like this it is best to start with a power usage in the range of 15-25 watts. This can be achieved with an efficient power supplies and NEC C3/C7 or maybe even AMD Geode processors. I hope that the Windows 2003 basis on which WHS is built supports this hardware. The modern (dual core?) laptop processor also qualifies and has the ability to "scale up" as needed. I was hoping for more input on systems that seem to support WHS well and use power in the "sweet range" of around 20 watts.
    Friday, May 25, 2007 3:50 PM
  • I've previously posted (in this thread) my power usage, but I don't think you are ever going to get to 20 watts if you have two or more hard drives, as each drive will be about 10 to 11 watts alone.

     

    Charle

    Friday, May 25, 2007 8:12 PM
  • Maybe you are right. Your 75 watts are better than my 90 watts. But there have been posts mentioning successful use of the C3. It seems possible to break the 40 watts barrier at least. And allowing the harddrives to spin down is acceptable for me. My Freecom FSG-3 saves the power by spinning down the harddrive as well. If I can build or by a working WHS using less than 20 watts I think I am prepared to leave it on day and night. Otherwise I'd stick with wake-on-lan through the router and I would probably do manual backups.
    Friday, May 25, 2007 9:28 PM
  • I run my WHS inside of a virtual machine for this very reason.  I just added two hard drives to my main PC + use them for WHS data stores.... I'm gessing I may have added 20w (what the two hard drives pull) to what I already run anyway... I love the backups that WHS provides... + the remote access... I just can't see running another whole machine that likely pulls 100 watts when I have plenty of extra RAM and CPU cycles on my desktop.

     

    If my PC goes down + I have to restore it, I'll be able to put my WHS drives into any other desktop, load virt server 2007 on it and WHS won't know the diffrence.... I'll then be able to use the connector software to restore my desktop.

    Friday, May 25, 2007 11:56 PM
  • Hi all,

    just got into this discussion. I´ve installed WHS on a Dell Optiplex SX270 with USB Storage devices, which only Power On when the Computer is turned on. The Dell Optiplex have a nice Feature in the BIOS where I was able to define a Power On Time (in my case every Day at 0800am). So the WHS is needed between 0800am and 0200am (there is a Teamspeak-Server running), the "Server" is shuting down automatically with shutdown.exe . When I think about who will use this WHS in future, I think it´s easier to define PowerOn-Time in BIOS as via WOL-Magic Pakets. On the other Hand it would be nice to inegrate a pre-configured WOL-Feature within the Client-Software, so starting the Client means starting the WHS.

    Saturday, May 26, 2007 3:46 PM
  • Other than the fact I had to remove the top cover to make it flexible enough to 'wedge' in my case, I am well satisfied with the supply I bought from Antec that claims 80% efficiency.  Fitting it in was not so much a matter of brute force, more a matter of less than gentle persuasion.

    Wednesday, June 13, 2007 6:31 PM
  • Something else to consider too for those of you with boxes that don't have siginificant power-saving modes (i.e. PIIIs and PIVs) is that you can significantly reduce the processors power consumption if you underclock it.  I seem to recall hearing about someone underclocking a PIII 1.4GHz down to 700MHz and it got the processor below the 10W consumption mark, much lower than an actuall 700MHz PIII due to die-shrink and other manufacturing advancements in the newer processors.  I'd say it's worth trying although you might have to play with it a bit to find that sweet spot where it's still performing the way you want it.
    Saturday, June 16, 2007 10:22 AM
  • I have WHS running at a P3 677 with 1 HD and no video card. The PSU is 250w.Thias system stays below 30W. for file sharing and backup it is all you need

    Thursday, January 10, 2008 8:50 PM
  • After reading your power usage post, I just went to newegg and purchased a new Antec EA-430 power supply.  It is suposed to be an energy saver. And by the way how can I measure my WHS total wattage output. I am running a AMD XP 2200+ one gig of PC3200 memory one pci video card and a soon to be SATA controller card, with two 320gb Segate HDs.

    Saturday, January 12, 2008 5:17 AM
  •  Jerry Pell wrote:

    And by the way how can I measure my WHS total wattage output.

    I use a P4400 Kill A Watt power meter to measure the input power to my power supply.

    Saturday, January 12, 2008 7:05 AM
  • Here is a link to my story on how to build a server that consumes litle energy but has power to get the job done.

    http://forums.microsoft.com/WindowsHomeServer/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1759857&SiteID=50 

    Saturday, January 12, 2008 6:30 PM
  • Do you think it will make a difference if I change out my AGP graphics card Geforce 128 meg, and replace it with an older PCI version, I think it has 32 meg on it.  Will it save any power?

    Monday, January 14, 2008 5:10 AM
  • I would say yes because a common roule is the larger an morepowerfull your graphics card is the more power it consumes. So if you have an old pci adapter with hardly any 3D features I would say try it.

    I went for onbord graphics because I belive this is the most powerefficent solution.

     

    Monday, January 14, 2008 7:44 AM
  •  Jerry Pell wrote:

    Do you think it will make a difference if I change out my AGP graphics card Geforce 128 meg, and replace it with an older PCI version, I think it has 32 meg on it.  Will it save any power?

    It probably would, but I'm prone to actually measuring power consumption for roughly a 24 hour period before and after such a change with my Kill a Watt, dividing the KWH/H to get long term average power.  I can't seem to get my server to boot without a graphics adapter or I'd have no video card in it at all.  

    Monday, January 14, 2008 7:45 AM
  •  Pyrotek wrote:

    I would say yes because a common roule is the larger an morepowerfull your graphics card is the more power it consumes. So if you have an old pci adapter with hardly any 3D features I would say try it.

    I went for onbord graphics because I belive this is the most powerefficent solution.

     

    I have a graphics card in my PC and it is connected to a KVM switch but can't you deal with this in power management - when the system turns off the monitor does the power consumption on your graphics card not go down to almost nothing?
    Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:00 PM
  •  wayner9 wrote:
     Pyrotek wrote:

    I would say yes because a common roule is the larger an morepowerfull your graphics card is the more power it consumes. So if you have an old pci adapter with hardly any 3D features I would say try it.

    I went for onbord graphics because I belive this is the most powerefficent solution.

     

    I have a graphics card in my PC and it is connected to a KVM switch but can't you deal with this in power management - when the system turns off the monitor does the power consumption on your graphics card not go down to almost nothing?

    I can't discern any change in server power consumption between when the monitor is on, sleeping or off.

    Wednesday, January 16, 2008 5:25 AM
  • I have a question, my WHS has a Athlon 1800+ processor 512mb of PC3200DDR Memory, 32bm agp video card this is the smallest one I could find, and two 320gb SATA hard disks. I just purchased a Antec 430 watt green power supply and I am drawing 96 watts. I was hoping to draw a lot less, is this acceptable or do I have more work to do.

    Friday, January 18, 2008 12:58 AM
  •  Jerry Pell wrote:

    I have a question, my WHS has a Athlon 1800+ processor 512mb of PC3200DDR Memory, 32bm agp video card this is the smallest one I could find, and two 320gb SATA hard disks. I just purchased a Antec 430 watt green power supply and I am drawing 96 watts. I was hoping to draw a lot less, is this acceptable or do I have more work to do.

    I don't know what to to tell you.  I have a 2 Gb P4, 5 PATA drives, 1 GB RAM and a 256 MB AGP card in mine with an Antec EarthWatts 500 Watt supply.  My long term average for 577 hours is 95.42 Watts.  I can't seem to get my mobo to boot without a video card and two of my drives are too small to be of much use, so I'm sure a better mobo would get me lower, but buying anything new for it is not very green.  I could get a bit better numbers by resetting my meter, but it has been running since before I changed the power supply and the long term numbers mean something to me. 

    Friday, January 18, 2008 6:04 AM
  • To Jerry Pell and Jeshimon

     

    This is a line i wrote in my thread: WHS on AMD Turion64 (powersaving) the link is in a post by me in this thread.

    I wrote:

    Until now i have been running the WHS on an Duron 600, Asrock K7S41 mainborard 2* 512 Mb. ram and 

    2* 320 Gb. + 400 Gb. Seagate Barracuda disks.

    The thermal design og the Duron 600 is max 27 watts but still my setup is consuming 90 watts at idle and that is to expensive for me as i want the WHS to run 24/7.

     

    I culdent live with that so I have changed al my hardware an have know an WHS rig that looks like this:

     

    Windows Home Server OEM
    AMD Turion 64 MT 34
    MSI K8MM3-V onboard VGA
    1Gb Pc 3200 Kingston.
    Samsung 160 Gb. 2,5" Notebook
    Seagate 7200.10 320Gb.
    Samsung P166 500Gb.
    WD Caviar GP WD10EACS 1000Gb.
    Seasonic S12II 330W 80PLUS
    Strømforbrug (220V)
    33 Watt idle 58 watt load

     

    I can only say that using older hardware works and has the power to get the job done but it is not power efficent.

    Everyone that I has read about that uses some 4-5 years old hardware is using about 80 - 100 watt.

     

    If you want to go lower you must skip the graphics card and have an motherboard with onbord graphics. That will save You everything from 20 - 80 watt depending on what graphics card you have ben using until now.

     

    Also dont use a motherboard with a lot of fancy features and go for one with an 3 phase voltage regulator as they are more power efficent. In BIOS diable al features that You dont use Com ports, LPT port, onbord sound and perhaps USB ports if You dont use them for harddrives. Every litle bit of electronic uses power.

     

    Use powernow (AMD) or speedstep (Intel) if Your CPU is able to. So Jerry Pell You could save some power if you had an Athlon XP-M (mobile) CPU because this socket A CPU can run with powernow the normal Athlon XP dossent have this feature.

    Ram stics only one and as big as supportet by the motherboard because 2 stics of 512Mb consumes more than one of 1024Mb.

    Harddrives few and big ones (You need 2 for folder dublication).

    Power supply 80PLUS certifeidet is an must have and as small as possible because an PSU i most powerefficent when it dellivers about 60% of its rated cappacity and by using and 80PLUS you are only sure that it is over 80% efficent between 20 - 100% nod below 20% and 20% of a cappacity of leds say 330Watt like mine Seasonic S12II 330Watt is 66watt and my WHS setup never uses over 58 watt even under load. So thats why small and power efficent.

     

    Hope this helps someone in tunnig al those WHS rigs outthere.

     

    Pyrotek

    Friday, January 18, 2008 8:04 AM
  • Boy do I need help, after reading this post I realized how much power my WHS was using 119w. So I tried for the life of me to find a low power system, after weeks of research I went out and purchased a Asus M2NBP-VM CSM socket AM2 mobo with a sempron 1150LE 45W.  After installing WHS I find out that this board does not have any windows server 2003 drivers (although it showed some on the asus website) and when I install the XP win2k, vista drivers the system becomes unstable and constantly restarts. The chipset is Northbridge Nvidia quadro NVS210s GPU and Souuthbridge Nvidia nForce 430B MCP, please does anyone have any suggestions.

     

    Tuesday, February 5, 2008 1:13 PM
  • Re power consumption, I think a lot of the problem is due to the processor choice.

     

    The system I'm running is an HP Proliant ML110 G4, which was £200 of ebuyer :-) but has xeon 3040 dual-core, 2GB RAM, original 160GB HDD plus two 500GB western digital HDDs.  Despite the power supply being only 65% efficient, it averages 71W.  The breakdown is roughly:

     

    RAM 2W

    Hard disks, 3x8W = 24W

    Chipset, 10W

    CPU 10W

     

    Total 46W @ 65% = 71W input.

     

    Check your power management is enabled, selecting minimal power management enables the CPUs sleep states, which can reduce consumption a surprising amount.

    Tuesday, February 19, 2008 5:48 PM
  • I am going to put together a WHS using old stock:-

    PIII 1.4Ghz  this is the server CPU with 512 L1
    Gigabyte GA 6VEML with OB VGA  OB LAN  (sound disabled)
    2 x 512Mb 133 SDRAM
    Ultra ATA/133 PCI IDE RAID Controller Card
    2 x 160 HHD IDE RAID 1
    1 x 160 HHD IDE
    300W PSU (bog standard)

    How do I go about measureing the power used

    Your HP system looks great and now down to £175.00, some places. Would you recommend it so far?

    Great Thread



    Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:12 AM
  •  bigDGH wrote:

    How do I go about measureing the power used

    KillaWatt P3 powermeter works really well.

    Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:16 AM
  • Hello,

     

    Maplin sell plug-in power meters: http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?TabID=1&ModuleNo=38343&doy=20m2

     

    They are usually on sale £15 or about the same off ebay.  The will tell you the power consumption but also the power factor, important since computer power supplies don't use the full wave, so the electricity company has to generate more power than it actually uses.  So my HP is 65% efficient but also has a power factor of only 0.8 or so - so the electric company must actually generate 89W to make it work.  With transmission line losses the actual fuel consumption at the power station is probably ~250W, to power my 46W computer

     

    The HP system is very good indeed, honestly it's an absolute bargain.  It has a proper server chipset, ECC RAM, Xeon dual-core processor, big server-grade spin-detect ball bearing fans, heat-pipe CPU heatsink thing and decent front-to-back cooling arrangement, and a heavy weight steel case with the sides all properly sealed with conductive gaskets.

     

    I would also say, despite MS's references to old hardware, a faster CPU is worth it.  The load on the machine is often 30-50% with all it's background tasks, AV of course, and I put on that WebGuide add-on for remote media streaming etc which is also cool.

     

    And finally it's working on BIONICs stuff (ironically the climate change one ) overnight on my cheap-rate electricity for 7 hours each day during which time it consumes about 105W.  Sure beats my old 3GHz P4 which consumes 160W on the same task, especially considering it is a full 3x faster .

     

    The other thing is you want a server to be reliable.  Why risk an old machine, I don't know it doesn't make sense to me.

     

    Cheers!

    Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:01 AM
  • Here's the spec of my 37W server

     

     

    Jetway J7F4K 1.2GHz Eden CN700 Mainboard - Dual GigaLAN - Fanless £87
    Kingston 512MB 533MHz DDR2 - £10

    Cubid 2699R - Black - £61

    HDD WD Green power 500gb - £62

     

    Total £219 or approx $440

     

    This exludes my 3 month WHS trial which i need in a while.

     

    Hope this helps - I did all the research in April 2008 so am confident this is a great spec at this time.

     

    Regards

     

    Tino

     

     
    Monday, April 7, 2008 1:06 PM
  •  HLaRoux wrote:

    I think all but the "extreme" of the newer Core2 or AMD platforms draw 65w or less. Even with dual core, 2x FSB, and 10-20x L2 cache, this is still about 10w less than your Celeron. Combined with Speedstep type technology and the situation is much better today than even a year ago.

     

    Though they aren't currently very available to home builders, the mobile variants are showing up more often in OEM desktop builds. These are about half the draw of the existing desktop processors and there are variants on the horizon that half that again.

     

    I think this is an area that few have given much attention to particularly as it affects the total cost of ownership. The OEMs haven't done a good job either educating the public otherwise, nobody would buy a Pentium D when they could get a Core2 for $20 more.

     

    I am also trying to minimize power usage.  I gave up on S3 after using it for about 2 years on my current XP fileserver.  My 480w Antec PS pooped out on me recently, probably at least partly from spinning up 5HDs everytime it woke up (several times a day).  Also, I found it more difficult than expected to get it working properly.  With some settings it would never sleep, with others it would not wake.  I did get it working well for a year or two, but a driver update screwed everything up within a week of the PS failure.  It is on 24/7 now to avoid the hassle.  It is an old P4 machine with 5HDs and a cdrom that burns 128w at idle.  I hope to cut that in half with my WHS server and just leave it on.

     

    The newest C2D (E8200 - E8500) burns just 3w at idle and only 30w max.  I doubt you could do much better than that even with a mobile processor.  Also, look at the WD GP drives, which only burn 3.8w at idle (about half the power of most drives).  Hopefully I can keep the processor cool without a fan to further minimize power.  With an efficient PS I expect to keep it under 60w without any trouble, even with 4 or more HDs.  If you want more info, SilentPCreview is a good resource for minimizing power and noise.

    Wednesday, April 9, 2008 1:16 AM
  • A litle update on my server:

     

     

     Server:
    Windows Home Server OEM
    AMD Turion 64 MT 34

    Zalmann AlCu 7000 cpu cooler.
    MSI K8MM3-V onboard VGA
    1Gb Pc 3200 Kingston.
    Samsung 160 Gb. 2,5" Notebook
    2* WD Caviar GP WD10EACS 1Tb. Total 2160 Gb.
    Seasonic S12II 330W 80PLUS
    Power consumption (220V)
    32 Watt idle 55 watt load.

     

    So there is now as I se it only one litle thing more for me to do and that is change the Zalmann active cooler with an passiv heatzink and save the power that the fan uses.

     

     

     

     

    Wednesday, April 9, 2008 11:27 AM
  • Mycurrent configuration:

    Asus CUV4X
    P-III 800 MHz
    1 x intel-CPUfan (small)
    1 x 12V-case-fan running @ 7 Volts (connectedbetween 5 and 12 Volts)
    768 MB SDRAM PC133 (3x256)
    1 WD 140GB Harddrive
    140W PSU, no brandname
    1 NIC 100MBps
    1 Nvidia AGP4x Vanta videcard, 32MB
    no keyboard connected
    no screen connected

    Power consumption idle: 37 Watts
    Powerconsumption: full load 55-60Watts

    Yesterday I did some testing, trying to reduce powerconsumption even more.

    1: shutdown computer, disconnected power to the HD, booted
    result: 51 Watts
    (what? more power consumption, with less connected)

    2: exchanged the PSU for a Thermaltake 350Watts PSU with T-controlled big-***-fan
    result: 50,5 Watts
    (so no difference by PSU)

    3.: connected old PSU again. changed CPU speed in bios from 800MHz to 400 MHz...
    result: still 50-51 Watts

    4: connected HD again, still CPU at 400MHz:
    result: 38 Watts

    5: connected HD again.
    result: 37 Watts

    Please advise...I checked and checked again, but less devices connected should mean, less power consumption, but my system uses more?

    Wednesday, May 28, 2008 11:39 AM