Expet Recommendation Sought

[Folkert Rienstra]

Obvious evidence of Dannys terminal stupidity snipped

Yes and thanks, I stand by my original post and my web page on the
subject. http://www.dannysdailys.com/tips/dan28.html

You know, this is the first post I've been called names over.

Obvious lie.

I have almost 25 years in this

Ah, that must be why we have never heard of you before.

game

Such a good choice of words. Isn't that what youngsters do.

and I'm not amused by 16 year old snerts.

You sure sound like one.
Anyone wise enough would have had the decency to ignore it.
But here you are, a name caller yourself.

I hope this doesn't reoccur with any degree of regularity,

Of course it will.

or I'll be gone.

Be gone, please.

I won't have my name smeared by anyone.

Especially someone who doesn't know me and I've never met.

What are you going to do about it. Leave here? What a waste.

I don't have to share what my experiance has taught me with anyone.

Exactly. No one asks you.

I normally get 150 dollars an hour for that.

Good for you.

People don't call me names.

Trust me,

By now you should be quite aware that we don't.

they don't... They're damned glad to have me.

God forbid that there are no gullible people around anymore,
there wouldn't be any swindlers to take advantage of them.
They would be out of a job.

 

[w_tom]

To include more numbers are some from a disk drive
datasheet. The lowest number I ever saw was on an IBM disk
drive that was rated for only 40,000 power cycles. That is
power cycling seven times every days for ..... 15
years. But again, power cycling is destructive ...
subjectively. Once we apply the numbers, then power cycling
becomes irrelevant.

Most drives are rated for something more like 100,000 power
cycles. This one drive had an extremely low spec rating that
again demonstrated the expression, "It just doesn't matter."

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed (e-mail address removed) wrote

To include more numbers

Lying, again. You havent 'included' a single
number, you silly little pathological liar.

are some from a disk drive datasheet. The lowest number
I ever saw was on an IBM disk drive that was rated for only
40,000 power cycles. That is power cycling seven times
every days for ..... 15 years.

And a lot less if you have the idle time set for say 15 mins, ****wit.

But again, power cycling is destructive ...

You're the only one that ever mentioned 'destructive',
you silly little pathological liar.

subjectively. Once we apply the numbers,
then power cycling becomes irrelevant.

Wrong. As always.

Most drives are rated for something more like 100,000 power cycles.

Wrong. As always.

This one drive had an extremely low spec rating that again
demonstrated the expression, "It just doesn't matter."

Lying, as always.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed (e-mail address removed) wrote

To include more numbers

Lying, again. You havent 'included' a single
number, you silly little pathological liar.

are some from a disk drive datasheet. The lowest number I ever saw
was on an IBM disk drive that was rated for only 40,000 power cycles.

Best get those eyes tested then, you silly little pathological liar.

Try 10K with the 60GXP, 120GXP, 180GXP

That is power cycling seven times every days for ..... 15 years.

And a lot less if you have the idle time set for say 15 mins, ****wit.

But again, power cycling is destructive ...

You're the only one that ever mentioned 'destructive',
you silly little pathological liar.

subjectively. Once we apply the numbers,
then power cycling becomes irrelevant.

Wrong. As always.

Most drives are rated for something more like 100,000 power cycles.

Wrong. As always.

This one drive had an extremely low spec rating that again
demonstrated the expression, "It just doesn't matter."

Lying, as always.

 

[Arno Wagner]

To include more numbers are some from a disk drive
datasheet. The lowest number I ever saw was on an IBM disk
drive that was rated for only 40,000 power cycles. That is
power cycling seven times every days for ..... 15
years. But again, power cycling is destructive ...
subjectively. Once we apply the numbers, then power cycling
becomes irrelevant.

Actually that is start-stop cycles (i.e. spin-up followed by eventual
spin-down), not power cycles. These drives have unlimited power
cycles, provided that the disk does _not_ spin. In some models
(usually in SCSI) it is possible to tell the drives not to
automatically spin-up when power is applied.

If you set your OS to spin down the disk after, e.g., 1 minute of
inactivity, you might kill it pretty fast. That is also the reason
notebook HDDs usually have at least 500.000 start-stop cycles.

Arno

 

[J. Clarke]

Joe King wrote:

@hotmail.com:
[...]

Subjective reasoning, no numbers, junk science.

The phrase 'hoist by his own petard' springs to mind.

The simple fact is that power cycling causes one kind of degradation,
continuous operation causes another, either will eventually kill some
component or other, and unlike a light bulb, radio, TV, or automobile the
computer will be long since obsolete before that occurs.

Except for the PSU dying on power outages. With servers and
workstations running 24/7 it is a common event that some have dead
PSUs after a power outage. If they had been switched off daily,
the event would just have happened earlier and nobosy would
assume running them 24/7 was better....

What kind of power protection do you have on them? It's not uncommon for a
substantial surge to occur on restoration of the mains after a power
outage--if the power supplies are not either physically disconnected in
some manner or behind an _effective_ surge-managing device then that surge
can kill them nicely--this has nothing to do with continuous operation vs
power cycling.

As for switching them off daily causing the event to occur sooner, maybe,
maybe not.

Regardless, if this is a _common_ occurrance in your shop you need to find
out why. Once in a while, yes, but if it's "a common event" then there is
something wrong--a design or quality control problem with the hardware or
inadequate protection from power irregularities.

As to it becoming obsolete, that depends on the usage. There
are severs that run for half a decade or longer. Of course
nobody would try that wit a MS box, but that is besides the point
and not all of us use a toy as operating system.

Half a decade is not that long. I've seen 5 years of continuous uptime on
bargain-basement consumer PCs built from the cheapest available
components--generally I notice that when I'm called in to do a capacity
upgrade. If your purpose-built servers aren't giving you well over that
they've got a design or quality control problem.

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

There was a recent discussion in another group on this where an
expert called w_tom made a strong case for the opposite view,

w_tom is anything but an expert. He's an idiot.

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

Power off or hibernation the machine when done to preserve
machine life expectancy.

And where's your numbers for this?

After all, it power cycling was so
destructive as others have posted, then we must always leave
on every radio, TV, light bulb, and automobile.

Oh, look. No numbers, just speculation - "junk science" to use w_tom's
phrase.

More complete crap from w_tom.

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

Your presentation of your case impressed me.

Why? He attacked other contributors for not "posting the numbers", then
offered no numbers to support his own case.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

w_tom is anything but an expert. He's an idiot.

Oh look, another Rod Speed. It must be catching.