Green Initiative

[markd87]

I realize most of the bloggers on these forums typically discuss custom gaming rigs, but I have a very simple problem for which I cannot find a solution. I work for a large corporation and I have recently joined an environmental sustainability initiative team within the company to attempt to reduce our carbon footprint. One initiative I wanted to push was shutting systems down after business hours. However, our IT department reported to our group that out of 25,000 systems owned by the company only 10,000 of the systems have the capabilities to be automatically turned on through the network to receive system updates. The industry we operate in possesses large quantities of sensitive information; therefore, it is critical that all systems are able to get updates at all hours. Our IT department obviously stated that security supersedes any environmental initiatives, and that systems should be left on all the time in order to receive updates. Does anyone know of any external device that could communicate with the network and automatically turn on the systems that lack the capabilities to communicate with the network while off? Any information any of you have would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Mark.

 

[Sasqui]

I realize most of the bloggers on these forums typically discuss custom gaming rigs, but I have a very simple problem for which I cannot find a solution. I work for a large corporation and I have recently joined an environmental sustainability initiative team within the company to attempt to reduce our carbon footprint. One initiative I wanted to push was shutting systems down after business hours. However, our IT department reported to our group that out of 25,000 systems owned by the company only 10,000 of the systems have the capabilities to be automatically turned on through the network to receive system updates. The industry we operate in possesses large quantities of sensitive information; therefore, it is critical that all systems are able to get updates at all hours. Our IT department obviously stated that security supersedes any environmental initiatives, and that systems should be left on all the time in order to receive updates. Does anyone know of any external device that could communicate with the network and automatically turn on the systems that lack the capabilities to communicate with the network while off? Any information any of you have would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Mark.

There is/was "wake on Lan" features in Windows and most BIOS supported it. How that works now and if IT can use it is another thing.

One suggestion to save some electricity is to get people in the habit of turning monitors off when they leave. Contratry to popular belief, a screen saver is NOT a power saver.

 

[markd87]

Thanks Sasqui. I have already suggested that all monitors be shut off daily, and I was aware of the Windows wake feature. I guess I just need to do more due diligence regarding the exact system requirements in order to determine whether there is a band-aid fix available.

 

[Sasqui]

Thanks Sasqui. I have already suggested that all monitors be shut off daily, and I was aware of the Windows wake feature. I guess I just need to do more due diligence regarding the exact system requirements in order to determine whether there is a band-aid fix available.

We had the same initiative where I worked before... it was absolutely amazing that 50% of monitors would still be on after work hours, most with the windows logo bouncing around on the screen.

I don't know if the wake-on-lan works from hibernate or just from sleep. Hibernate is pretty damn close to shutting the system down completely, saving the equivalent of 3-4 60W light bulbs worth of juice!

 

[cheesy999]

We had the same initiative where I worked before... it was absolutely amazing that 50% of monitors would still be on after work hours, most with the windows logo bouncing around on the screen.

I don't know if the wake-on-lan works from hibernate or just from sleep. Hibernate is pretty damn close to shutting the system down completely, saving the equivalent of 3-4 60W light bulbs worth of juice!

yeah,hibernate could work well as systems only use 3-4w in hibernate

 

[Frederik S]

Does anyone have a report on wear induced by system hibernation compared to on/off, or on all the time?

The most effective strategy might not be the most obvious once you start factoring in component failure and so forth.

For instances a modern windmill must work flawlessly for over 18 months in order to produce the amount of energy needed for creating one. In addition to that you need to manage the various toxic chemicals used in the production of fiber reinforced components.

 

[Frederik S]

I don't know if the wake-on-lan works from hibernate or just from sleep. Hibernate is pretty damn close to shutting the system down completely, saving the equivalent of 3-4 60W light bulbs worth of juice!

A modern PC at idle uses nowhere near 240 watts at idle.

This test shows around 90 watts and even that is on the high side since most work PCs are less powerful. The test is 3 years old so the numbers for newer PCs is probably a lot lower.

So best case scenario you are saving ~ 80 watts. A normal efficient LCD screen uses around 20 watts and around 1-2 watts in standby.

 

[streetfighter 2]

There is/was "wake on Lan" features in Windows and most BIOS supported it. How that works now and if IT can use it is another thing.

One suggestion to save some electricity is to get people in the habit of turning monitors off when they leave. Contratry to popular belief, a screen saver is NOT a power saver.

Actually depending on the age of the system the screen saver IS a power saver. I know it sounds crazy but let me break it down.

If you're running a slideshow screensaver with 10MP snapshots on an obsolete P4 2.8GHz, you're going to using up to 20% CPU (if you have animations on). Most computers are just going to be using the default Windows XP screensaver which takes up around 2-4% on an older P4. It's not a lot, but added up over a year (and multiplied by 1000 machines) it's not entirely insignificant. This is why I use the black screen screen saver (which uses no CPU) on my laptops.

Obviously all computers should force the monitors to sleep after around 20 minutes or so.

Does anyone have a report on wear induced by system hibernation compared to on/off, or on all the time?

Unfortunately I don't have empirical data to back me up but so far as I know it's long been assumed that a system running breaks much less often than one which is power cycled often. Furthermore when a system goes into hibernate (or S4) it is nearly the same as turning off the computer with the exception that the contents of RAM are dumped to the HDD prior to shutdown. I'm pretty sure the CPU remains in a state which can be signaled, perhaps C3, when the system is hibernating. Dunno though.

 

[markd87]

Streetfighter 2, that's a really interesting and simple point that I overlooked. Switching to a black screensaver could be a very good way to cut back on some power consumption. Logically I would prefer to set the auto-shutdown for the screen a lot earlier, but unfortunately in a corporate setting we often get push back from just about any change other than pay raises. That could provide a plan B that will at least help reduce power consumption.

 

[slyfox2151]

auto sleep monitor after 20 mins should give the biggest savings. my 24 inch LCD uses nearly 100 watts when turned on.. it is on a fairly high brightness setting. that is only 20-30 % less then my PC idling @ 4ghz.... (130watts)


this drops to less then 3 watts when its put into sleep mode after 20 mins.


same goes for the PC itself.... it will draw less then 5 watts when in sleep mode... and even less in hibernation.



330watts to less then 10 watts after 20 mins, when my monitor, PC and sound system move into sleep mode.
EDIT: messured with a fairly accurate meter. +/- 3%

 

[Mussels]

you called us bloggers


personally i'd suggest S3 sleep states. there are methods to wake them up based on timers or any kind of local activity, and the IT guys could easily schedule windows updates and security updates at a set time, which does in fact wake the system from sleep, complete the task, and go back to sleep.


FYI, S3 sleep states use <10W of power, often only 1-2W more than when the systems are completely off. S1 sleep states only turn the monitor and drives off, saving crap all.

 

[markd87]

Mussels, thanks for that info. Is the S3 sleep state available in all versions of windows. I'm not sure how outdated some versions in the business may be, but I know a great deal of the technology in our company is relatively outdated. My system runs Windows XP, but I have no idea if all of our PC's throughout the business run XP nor do I have any idea what OS our servers are running at this point. I just want to get a better understanding of all technical requirements before approaching IT because I have been told that they have been very defensive through all preliminary discussions.

 

[Mussels]

Mussels, thanks for that info. Is the S3 sleep state available in all versions of windows. I'm not sure how outdated some versions in the business may be, but I know a great deal of the technology in our company is relatively outdated. My system runs Windows XP, but I have no idea if all of our PC's throughout the business run XP nor do I have any idea what OS our servers are running at this point. I just want to get a better understanding of all technical requirements before approaching IT because I have been told that they have been very defensive through all preliminary discussions.

S3 sleep is available in XP onwards, at least. its also called suspend in the older OS's. i'd suggest servers be left on and workstations set to sleep after say, 4 hours or so of disuse.


basically, its the same as hibernate on laptops except that it stores the data in ram, instead of on the hard drive (sleep in 7 actually does both, so if it loses power in sleep, it can wake from the drive)

the only requirements for sleep/hibernate, is that the BIOS on the machine be set to use S3 sleep instead of S1. all modern (and by modern, i mean 10 years or so ago, at least) systems support 'suspend' aka 'sleep' modes, its just the BIOS on the systems that controls what mode they actually use once the OS requests it.


the only possible problem is that machines with RAM problems can sometimes not wake up from S3 sleep states - then again, its just a way of identifying an already existing problem in that situation. those systems would crash occasionally anyway.


on their software side of things, if they set up tasks via windows task manager and schedule them that way, the computers will power back on in order to complete those tasks, then power back off again.