PDA

View Full Version : Computer Shutdown Question



sports fan Matt
November 12th, 2009, 11:31 PM
Which is better in your opinion and why?
(in terms of longetivity of your machine)

Shutting down every night
Hibernating

sports fan Matt
November 12th, 2009, 11:34 PM
I voted hibernate, but it honestly doesn't make a difference to me.

Exodist
November 12th, 2009, 11:38 PM
I never hibernate my PC. Its like half *** doing something. Gnome can remember everything I was doing when I left so Hibernating is uselss waste IMHO.

Also I never shutdown my PC unless I am working on hardware. ;)

The Real Dave
November 12th, 2009, 11:38 PM
21secs to boot so I shutdown :)

blueshiftoverwatch
November 13th, 2009, 12:55 AM
I don't think I've ever touched hibernate.

wojox
November 13th, 2009, 12:58 AM
I didn't vote. 24/7 - 365 their on, even the monitors.

sports fan Matt
November 13th, 2009, 01:11 AM
Wojox doesn't that and no offense..make your electric bill sky high?

KiwiNZ
November 13th, 2009, 01:43 AM
Its a question of cost comparison.Cost of power to cost of machine replacement. Powering off a machine each night and turning back on each day shortens the lifespan. This is the case for any electrical appliance .However keeping a PC in sleep mode consumes power so you need to weigh the difference .

I tend to put my PC's into sleep mode unless I intend to be away for a few days then I power off. My server runs 24/7 . My notebooks I power off/manage and carefully cycle batteries.

pwnst*r
November 13th, 2009, 01:51 AM
I didn't vote. 24/7 - 365 their on, even the monitors.

^this, but i do shut off my monitors.

wojox
November 13th, 2009, 01:54 AM
Wojox doesn't that and no offense..make your electric bill sky high?

I live in the hot muggy swamps of Florida Matt. The A/C is always cranked down to 75. My bill is so much already, I really never noticed. I've also always heard kiwinz's theory before as well.

uberdonkey5
November 13th, 2009, 01:59 AM
I use a laptop, which should be more resistant to regular shutdowns. Is there really much difference in hibernating or shutting down in terms of lifespan of the computer?

Actually, I don't have much choice.. hibernation doesn't work in ubuntu on my laptop.

As for environmental costs of not shutting down vs extra wear on computer.. I'd guess keeping your computer on is environmentally more damaging, but maybe real problem is our dependence on fossil/nuclear fuel (if your computer was wind powered, who would care if you left it on?)

Zoot7
November 13th, 2009, 02:00 AM
Ubuntu boots so fast I don't bother with Hibernation anymore, even though Karmic is the first version it's worked for me in.


Its a question of cost comparison.Cost of power to cost of machine replacement. Powering off a machine each night and turning back on each day shortens the lifespan.
Gotta disagree there. There was a time when power supplies used to "lurch" due to parasitics, but they've come a long way since. The only real cause of failure these days are hard drives or fans (basically anything that moves).

sports fan Matt
November 13th, 2009, 02:16 AM
I did at one point when I was living up north have it on 24/7..wasn't concerned about electricity usage. My bill this last month was like $30 range and the highest since i moved was in the 75-80 range, so i'm wondering/weighing the options..If you know what I mean. Only thing that has gone bad has been a power supply.

wulfgang
November 13th, 2009, 02:20 AM
I never shut down my pc unless I'm upgrading my kernel or something of that sort. However, if I had to make choice between hibernate and shutdown, I would choose shutdown.

KiwiNZ
November 13th, 2009, 02:21 AM
Ubuntu boots so fast I don't bother with Hibernation anymore, even though Karmic is the first version it's worked for me in.


Gotta disagree there. There was a time when power supplies used to "lurch" due to parasitics, but they've come a long way since. The only real cause of failure these days are hard drives or fans (basically anything that moves).

It is the affect on the soldering , the printed circuits , older HDDs can be affected by inefficient parking. The Cold start surge affects stresses the components ,its the cost of miniaturization. Newer HDD's are better protected but not immune. But as I said its a cost comparison exercise. With the average PC retention these days they are sold on well before their half life is reached anyway so its more likely to be a power consumption driven decision or start up time driven decision.

Frak
November 13th, 2009, 03:21 AM
^this, but i do shut off my monitors.
Same

Also, the Power Company isn't going to generate less power just because I turned off my computer.

HappyFeet
November 13th, 2009, 03:48 AM
Powering off a machine each night and turning back on each day shortens the lifespan.
Show me empirical data, studies, and definitive proof.

KiwiNZ
November 13th, 2009, 03:50 AM
Show me empirical data, studies, and definitive proof.

Let your fingers do the walking .;)

HappyFeet
November 13th, 2009, 03:52 AM
Let your fingers do the walking .;)

I figured since you know without a doubt, that you could provide proof. Until then I consider it an old wives tale.

Frak
November 13th, 2009, 03:52 AM
Show me empirical data, studies, and definitive proof.
CompTIA. In the Power Supply and protection section, it is considered general knowledge that power cycling damages components by rapidly expanding cooled components.

KiwiNZ
November 13th, 2009, 03:55 AM
CompTIA. In the Power Supply and protection section, it is considered general knowledge that power cycling damages components by rapidly expanding cooled components.

He got the nail

KiwiNZ
November 13th, 2009, 03:56 AM
I figured since you know without a doubt, that you could provide proof. Until then I consider it an old wives tale.

Believe what you will and disregard the rest .

Frak
November 13th, 2009, 03:57 AM
He got the nail
I had my Electrical Engineering book out :)

Firestem4
November 13th, 2009, 04:41 AM
CompTIA. In the Power Supply and protection section, it is considered general knowledge that power cycling damages components by rapidly expanding cooled components.

I completely agree with the statement becausee its fact.However the state of todays technology you are going to throw your computer away before any 'damage' from rapid expansion and contraction of electrical components will happen.

Back in my A+ class, my teacher showed us a study that said that CPU's (5 years ago) could withstand over 50,000,000 cold starts. I don't have the source nor do I remember if thats the real number. But it is an astronomical number because no home user (or Company for that matter) Is ever going to be able to reach that in a computers lifespan.

At this point, it doesn't matter. More likely something else in the machine will fail far before that with catastrophic results. A hard drive, a capacitor, whatever.

Therefore, I suspend my machines for quick resume.

BrMBr
November 13th, 2009, 04:50 AM
With a 15 sec boot, why hibernating? Besides that, hibernating is a piece anyway... ;)

Rainstride
November 13th, 2009, 04:54 AM
Which is better in your opinion and why?
(in terms of longetivity of your machine)

Shutting down every night
Hibernating

there is no difference between the two. the parts go bad from the heating up and cooling down. so unless you leave it on or off the majority of the time it doesn't matter.

personally if im going to sleep i turn it off, so i don't waste 8-13 hours worth of power. any other time, i have my power settings set to turn off my monitor after after 10min, and the system goes into sleep mode after 30min (it would be 20 but that option is gone in 9.10).

Exodist
November 13th, 2009, 05:51 AM
I live in the hot muggy swamps of Florida Matt. The A/C is always cranked down to 75. My bill is so much already, I really never noticed. I've also always heard kiwinz's theory before as well.

LOL I feel ya. I live in northeast corner of Mississippi. We got those 100F summers with the 99% humidity.

Nevon
November 13th, 2009, 07:52 AM
Resuming from hibernating takes almost as long as booting anyway, so there's not really a point for me. So I shut down my computer every night. No need to leave it running, as I'm not running any servers or anything, and it would just be a waste of electricity. If I was the one paying my heating bill (I rent, so the heat is part of my rent) I suppose I could leave them running in the winter, since the drop in my heating bill would make up for the cost of having them running - but I don't really see the point.

winjeel
November 13th, 2009, 08:22 AM
CompTIA. In the Power Supply and protection section, it is considered general knowledge that power cycling damages components by rapidly expanding cooled components.

I didn't know that. Glad I was procrastinating at this moment. I guess, shutting down and powering up in summer is fine, but winter hibernation is better... hmm.

However, my wife still has her IBM she bought in the late 1990's, and I have my laptop bought in 2001. The only problems are that her fan makes a noise (since it was dropped), and my old laptop has dust under the power button. Neither relate to cold starts. In contrast, my old digital SLR camera is on the blink because the first generation Anti-Shake technology failed, otherwise all else works. My sixteen year old film SLR became my main camera for a few weeks because of that. [/procrastination]

Exodist
November 13th, 2009, 09:51 AM
comptia. In the power supply and protection section, it is considered general knowledge that power cycling damages components by rapidly expanding cooled components.

+1 ^^ this ^^

Zoot7
November 13th, 2009, 09:53 AM
It is the affect on the soldering , the printed circuits , older HDDs can be affected by inefficient parking. The Cold start surge affects stresses the components ,its the cost of miniaturization. Newer HDD's are better protected but not immune. But as I said its a cost comparison exercise. With the average PC retention these days they are sold on well before their half life is reached anyway so its more likely to be a power consumption driven decision or start up time driven decision.
There's generally no reason why a well designed PCB board should fail after repeated power cycling over time (provided it's well designed).
In my line of work I've been working with PCB boards (generally applications boards) for stuff like Video Encoders/Decoders, FPGAs, DSPs, CPLDs. All would have been aggressively power cycled over time but yet all of them (if they worked to begin with) work as well as they did on day 1. They were normally used to compare an older more tried and tested parts to newer ones. There's no sign of degradation of supply voltages etc. Also most ICs these days have a form of overvoltage protection built into them too.
I wouldn't imagine there's any reason why a PC motherboard would be any different.

But you're right, most PCs are sold one well before their life is up; so it's of little consequence really.

Grenage
November 13th, 2009, 10:25 AM
We've had thousands of computers here; many are left on 24/7 and many are turned on and off several times a day, there was no real difference in the lifespan of the machines. While most are replaced after five years, some are over 10 years old.

While I have always believed that shutdowns and cold starts do result in greater stress, I also believe that you'd have to be using a workstation for decades before it had much of an impact.

With today's energy prices, I turn off my machines; it's not like I can't wait 20-30 seconds for it to boot up. I was actually running some numbers the other day, and it works out cheaper (over four years) for us to buy a brand new G6 Proliant server than it is for us to buy an older one for 100. Electricity is pricey here!

Paqman
November 13th, 2009, 10:28 AM
Its a question of cost comparison.Cost of power to cost of machine replacement. Powering off a machine each night and turning back on each day shortens the lifespan. This is the case for any electrical appliance .However keeping a PC in sleep mode consumes power so you need to weigh the difference .


I'd say the difference in reliability would be negligible between hibernate and shut down. Most components shut down during hibernation anyway, just like they do during shutdown. The number of thermal and electrical cycles would be pretty much identical.

sports fan Matt
November 13th, 2009, 04:03 PM
I left it on last night and plan to do so for a week just to see the difference (with the monitor off, mind you)

The Real Dave
November 13th, 2009, 04:49 PM
I figured since you know without a doubt, that you could provide proof. Until then I consider it an old wives tale.

Happy are those who have not seen and yet believe :lolflag: :lolflag: :lolflag:

Ya know, I just installed Karmic Server on some real old hardware, its been up for about 4 days now. My main server has been running for 66 days. It spins down the HDDs after 5mins, throttles the CPU and is running completely in RAM. At night, it does nothing, and the air coming from the PSU is almost cold.

I'm willing to bet, that, due to the age of the Karmic Server, its gonna be using alot more energy :( If only I could get Wake-On-LAN working

markp1989
November 13th, 2009, 04:53 PM
now the speed of booting is alot faster (my install <5sec from grub to x :D) so there is no point in hibernating ,and i dont have a swap partition so i cant lol

BinaryFeast
November 13th, 2009, 04:54 PM
I prefer to hibernate it. But since I currently have Ubuntu installed trough wubi that is not an option (tried it, resulted in complete boot failure). One day I'll take the time and do a proper dualboot install.

RabbitWho
November 13th, 2009, 05:24 PM
Powering off a machine each night and turning back on each day shortens the lifespan.

Really? I have a flat rate electricity bill so maybe I should do this. I figured having it sleep wouldn't low it a chance to cool down properly though.

But you know.. Climate change... what would Simon Amstell say?

Frak
November 13th, 2009, 10:48 PM
But you know.. Climate change... what would Simon Amstell say?

I go with the popular quote "The power company isn't going to shut down a generator just because I shut down my computer".

Grifulkin
November 13th, 2009, 10:55 PM
Personally I do neither.

PurposeOfReason
November 13th, 2009, 11:03 PM
Hibernate when I'm away, power off and switched off at night because I can't sleep with the mobo lights on.

samh785
November 13th, 2009, 11:25 PM
On my laptop I either suspend it if I'm not going to be using it temporarily or I shut it down when I'm not using it for many hours. Resuming from hibernating takes about as much time for me to boot the computer up so I don't bother.

On my desktop I just leave it on all the time so I don't bother with either :P