Leaving Dell Dimension 8300 running 24/7 ...?

Ok, but Steve was pointing out what he saw as a bottom line, which was that
for whatever reason the systems left on seemed to have far fewer crashes.
/Regardless/ of the underlying reasons, Steve makes a cogent argument when
armed with a sampling of several computers, no?

IOW, are you saying that there /must/ be some other explanation for Steve's
observations? If so, what might it be?


w_tom coughed up:
We would demonstrate this 24/7 solution as a myth and
demonstrate why they jumped to erroneous conclusions. Let's
take fans as example. Why does a fan fail? Power on surge?
Myth. Unless the person has performed a forensic analysis,
then he is only wildly speculating that power on caused the
failure. One we learned underlying facts, then the '24/7 to
perverse life expectancy' myth was exposed.

Again, that fan. What causes it to fail. Hours of
operation caused bearing wear, dust buildup, and so called
'power cycling' damage. What is that 'power cycling'? Number
of times circuits turn off and on. IOW the fan that runs
constant is exposed to far more power cycles because it power
cycles so often only when on.

They ran the machines 24/7. Then when the machines were
powered off, those machines did not start. That proves that
turning machines off causes failure? Wrong. Failure from
excessive wear most often appears on startup. And when do
fans with too many hours most often fail? When powered on.
Therefore technicians *assumed* startup was destructive rather
than first learn *why* the failure occurred. Failures due to
power up were repeatedly traced to 'hours of operation'.
Excessive wear due to leaving a machine always on was being
misrepresented by technicians who did not first learn the
facts. They did not first discover why failure happens; then
jumped to wild conclusions.

Why did that fan not start? Bearing was so worn from 24/7
operation as to not start after one power off.

We know routinely that power cycling has minimal adverse
affect on electronics and their mechanical devices (ie fans).
Manufacturers also say same in their detailed spec sheets.
That's two sources - real world experience AND manufacturer
data. Some devices do have power cycling limits. That means
they fail 15 and 39 years later if power cycled 7 times every
day. Who cares after 15 years.

Best one does for computer life expectancy is to turn system
off (or put it to sleep or hibernate it) when done. The 'turn
it off' myth comes from those who only see when a failure
happens and failed to learn why it happens. Without
underlying facts, those who advocate 'leave it on' demonstrate
why statistics without sufficient underlying facts causes
lies.

The most wear and tear on computers is clearly during
excessive hours of operation. That even includes 'wear and
tear' inside the CPU. CPU is constantly power cycling only
when running.

Power cycling can create failure. And then we apply
numbers. Power cycling seven times every day should cause
component failure in a soon as 15 years. They are correct
about the destructive nature of power cycling until the
numbers are applied. After 15 years, who cares?
Furthermore, start up problems are often created by damage
from too many hours of operation. This made obvious once we
dug into technicians claims - and exposed facts they never
first learned.

"Thomas G. Marshall" wrote:
Clarification: You say "much lower" failure rate. Is this accurate,
or would you say it is more like "lower", sans the superlative?

BTW, your empirical evidence like this is incredibly useful---
*thanks*



--
Framsticks. 3D Artificial Life evolution. You can see the creatures
that evolve and how they interact, hunt, swim, etc. (Unaffiliated with
me). http://www.frams.alife.pl/

"Thomas G. Marshall" . com wrote in message news:6QJPd.54465$g16.8172@trndny08...
User N coughed up:
"Thomas G. Marshall"
. com wrote in
message news:d%rPd.31607$W16.29973@trndny07...

1. Is the 8300 cooled enough or otherwise built for staying on?

If the machine is operating properly, free of cooling obstructions
(dust/lint), and operated in a room that is within environmental
requirements, it should be fine.

Fair enough. Is this advice specific to the 8300 though? Some machines
are not configured for internal air travel properly. Some of the earlier
dimensions (my IT guy pointed out once) were known for not bringing enough
air by the default HD bay, and memory. Apparently in the memory case, it
was because the CPU heat sink was upstream. {shrug}.

I was mostly generalizing. I have met some (technically cluefull) people
who own an 8300 and leave it up and running full time. But I can't recall
the specifics of their config/environment, and I don't know how that
would compare to yours.

I'm not aware of any fundamental cooling problems in the Dimension
8300 line, but that doesn't mean much. A google search of the web and
newsgroups, and a search of the Dell forums, should turn up numerous
complaints/discussions if there is some inherent design problem. I'm
not sure what capabilities your box has in terms of reporting temp for
key components, but if you are that concerned you could gather some
readings one way or another. If your box is capable of coping with
heavy use during the warmest periods in your home/business, it should
be able to cope during less demanding times. I'd be surprised if active
cooling is inappropriately curtailed in any power savings mode. But
there again, if you are that concerned you could do measurements/tests.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:34:49 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
. com wrote:

Questions:

1. Is the 8300 cooled enough or otherwise built for staying on? I'll of
course use power options to shutdown unnecessary things and brown down
perhaps the motherboard or something. I'll have to learn more about
this---I'm half ignorant on all things power control except for hibernation.

My wife leaves her 8300 on all the time. No problems so far. I can
see the back of it from here and the network activity light flashes
occasionally!

Seriously, they go into standby mode and use very little power so
cooling should not be a problem.
--
Top 10 Conservative Idiots:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/

Thomas G. Marshall wrote:

I am considering leaving the system on 24/7 and establishing a daily viral
sweep.

Why leave a computer on 24/7 if it isn't a server? We all have to start
to look for ways to curb excessive energy use and prevent global
warming, and one of the most painless ways to do this, it seems to me,
is to turn equipment off when you aren't using it.

--
Julian Moss
Tech-Pro Limited
http://www.tech-pro.net

Ben Myers wrote:

6. The debate about leaving a computer powered up 24/7 or powered down when not
in use centers around wear-and-tear. Those who prefer to leave a computer up
24/7 point to the wear-and-tear on system electronics due to the zero-to-60
effect of a sudden surge of current after a total absence of power. Those who
prefer to power down a computer point to the wear-and-tear of the bearings on
rotating motors, notably fans and the hard drives. For me, the hard drive AND
its contents are the most important part of my system, even with regular
backups. I can always replace a blown power supply, motherboard, CD-ROM drive,
memory, or ANY other part of a computer. But I cannot replace the data. So I
am in the power-it-down camp... Ben Myers

Same here, also for environmental reasons. I have a 7 year old Dell
Dimension XP 400 which was in daily use by me until a few months ago,
when it became my wife's computer. It has been used on average 10 hours
a day 5 days a week for all that time, always switched off at night, and
has never suffered a single hardware failure.

--
Julian Moss
Tech-Pro Limited
http://www.tech-pro.net

Paul Knudsen wrote:

Seriously, they go into standby mode and use very little power so
cooling should not be a problem.

They still use more power than when actually shut down. With power
saving enabled the HD and monitor power off when the system isn't being
used, so the wear and tear aspect of starting and stopping is still present.

--
Julian Moss
Tech-Pro Limited
http://www.tech-pro.net

Hank Arnold wrote:

1. The system is perfectly suited for staying on 24/7. Whether it's better
to keep it on vs. powering it off is an ongoing (decades, now) debate with
no clear winner... Do what is best for your situation.

This "leave the computer ON" discussion goes back much farther than Bill
Gates dreaming of being a billionaire. I worked for IBM 1965-70 and it
was common wisdom then that the most likely time for a [mainframe]
system failure was being when being powered up. Many shops at this time
who didn't run 24/7 left their S/360's on all weekend to avoid a power
on situation Monday morning.

And we powered down our GE-225 computer every night back in the '60s, unless I
was working around the clock doing some programming. Of course, it DID consume
a bit of electricity. Less powerful than an original IBM XT, but with
processing unit the size of 4 large refirgerators, hard disk pizza oven, and a
bank of tape drives, all on maybe 1000 square feet of raised flooring. Of
course, there were no power saving options back then... Ben Myers

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:07:54 -0500, Sparky wrote:

Hank Arnold wrote:

1. The system is perfectly suited for staying on 24/7. Whether it's better
to keep it on vs. powering it off is an ongoing (decades, now) debate with
no clear winner... Do what is best for your situation.

This "leave the computer ON" discussion goes back much farther than Bill
Gates dreaming of being a billionaire. I worked for IBM 1965-70 and it
was common wisdom then that the most likely time for a [mainframe]
system failure was being when being powered up. Many shops at this time
who didn't run 24/7 left their S/360's on all weekend to avoid a power
on situation Monday morning.

Julian coughed up:
Thomas G. Marshall wrote:

I am considering leaving the system on 24/7 and establishing a daily
viral sweep.

Why leave a computer on 24/7 if it isn't a server? We all have to
start to look for ways to curb excessive energy use and prevent global
warming, and one of the most painless ways to do this, it seems to me,
is to turn equipment off when you aren't using it.


Because otherwise it's too freaking cold in my computer room.

No, seriously, the reason for leaving it on 24/7 is that I *don't* want the
AV scan to run while I'm actually using it. Thus it seems that the best and
easiest way to handle that is to run the AV scan late or at least when I'm
done with it.

Unfortunately, it then becomes out of sight and mind, which means that I'll
never get around to checking for its completion and turning off the system.
And checking for that is a pain in the ass anyway.

Which brings me back to this equation:

Scanning every day == System always on

I don't like the notion very much, but it is reality. At least in my puny
universe.

--
"This creature is called a vampire. To kill it requires a stake
through its heart." "I shall drive my staff deep into its rump."
"No no, this creature is from a dimension where the heart is in the
chest." "....Disgusting."

Demons discussing "Angel", a good vampire from our dimension visiting
theirs.

Thomas G. Marshall wrote:

No, seriously, the reason for leaving it on 24/7 is that I *don't* want the
AV scan to run while I'm actually using it. Thus it seems that the best and
easiest way to handle that is to run the AV scan late or at least when I'm
done with it.

Unfortunately, it then becomes out of sight and mind, which means that I'll
never get around to checking for its completion and turning off the system.
And checking for that is a pain in the ass anyway.

Which brings me back to this equation:

Scanning every day == System always on

I don't like the notion very much, but it is reality. At least in my puny
universe.


You could write a bit of VB script to do the scan and then shut down the
computer when it has finished.
--
Julian Moss
Tech-Pro Limited
http://www.tech-pro.net