- May 9, 2003
- 277
- 0
- 0
I'm getting ready to deploy a home media server, which I configured to be as low-power as possible, so that it could feasibly be run 24/7 and use as much power as a light bulb. However, I've been doing some reading on Wake-On LAN, and it seems like this would be a much better option for energy conservation in my particular scenario. But that begged the question--what is truly better for the computer?
How much does starting-up and shutting-down (or entering/resuming from standby) reduce the lifespan of the average computer? I know that hard drives are hit the hardest by this, since they have the most moving parts, but to what extent are they harmed? In the end, the difference between letting the computer enter standby regularly, and leaving it on and idle 24/7, is probably only a few dollars a month in electricity bills. Is there any advantage to leaving the computer on all the time? Or am I better served with WOL, with the server in standby at any time it's not being used?
How much does starting-up and shutting-down (or entering/resuming from standby) reduce the lifespan of the average computer? I know that hard drives are hit the hardest by this, since they have the most moving parts, but to what extent are they harmed? In the end, the difference between letting the computer enter standby regularly, and leaving it on and idle 24/7, is probably only a few dollars a month in electricity bills. Is there any advantage to leaving the computer on all the time? Or am I better served with WOL, with the server in standby at any time it's not being used?