10 ms·

> does result in thousands of dollars spend on extra electricity Thousands maybe - definitely not millions as they are claiming. From what I read it was setup

by nadams 11y ago

> does result in thousands of dollars spend on extra electricity Thousands maybe - definitely not millions as they are claiming. From what I read it was setup to calculate through the screensaver. For most of the day - the computer will be in use and I would imagine/hope that they turn them off when they leave.

DanBC 11y ago
Advice used to be to not turn machines off but let themgo into sleep. This avoided power cycling which some people though caused problems. A sleeping machine still costs money, but much less than a machine churning SETI. 5,000 machines churning SETI for nine years? I'd be interested in estimates of cost.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Quick and inaccurate estimate: Let's say 100W per computer running at full blast, and assume 12 cents per kWh for electricity. Running for 9 years straight, that's about 5 million dollars. If they're running for 16 hours/day then it's more like 3 million dollars. Adjust other factors to taste, but "millions" sounds pretty reasonable.
- sean13013 11y ago
  If the machines were awake for 12 extra hours a day, and drew 100 watts, that's 0.1kW * 5000machines * 12hours = 6000kWh per day. Where I live, electricity costs about 20 cents per kWh. 0.2dollars * 6000kWh * 365days * 9years = $3.94 million.
- Alupis 11y ago
  Well, far from being definitive, but it looks like a regular pc will cost around $227.52 (350 watt psu, $18.96 per month) in electricity per year to run 24/7.[1] (calculated using $0.06 per kWh, which is rather low for most people in the US) So, 5,000 machines running 24/7/365 would cost around $1,137,600 annually (5,000 machines * $227.52 per year) in electricity usage alone. Of that 24 hours per day, we can assume 8 hours of each day the district expected to pay for them to run, so that leaves ~16 hours the district expected the machines to be asleep or off. 24 - 8 = 16 (about 66% of the 24 hour period) So, the admin was consuming about $12.51 per machine per month the district did not expect. This comes out to around $750,600 the sys admin potentially cost the district, for a single year. He ran this scheme for 9 years -- so... $750,600 per year * 9 years = $6,755,400 in additional electricity costs Keep in mind this is likely rather low, since most places in the US have a significantly higher per kWh fee than the $0.06 per kWh used in these calculations. I'm certain that this sum alone was enough cause to terminate the sys admin. Think about all the things the school district could have spent an extra ~$7MM+ on... [1] http://www.dslreports.com/faq/2404 http://www.dslreports.com/faq/2404
  - redblacktree 11y ago
    Something is wrong with your math. $227.52/year is $0.62/day Also, bear in mind that PSUs do not use their full rating unless the hardware they are powering requires it. [0] Your number could easily be double what the machines actually used, if the PSU was somewhat oversized, as they typically are. [0]: https://superuser.com/questions/106792/does-a-power-supply-draw-only-as-much-power-as-it-needs https://superuser.com/questions/106792/does-a-power-supply-d...
    - Alupis 11y ago
      Sorry, type-o, math is still correct though. Meant it to say "per month" not "per day".
  - digler999 11y ago
    > 350 watt psu, PSU's arent light bulbs. A "350 watt" psu doens't draw 350 watts. That's the theoretical maximum you can draw from it. Sure, SETI was probably drawing a higher load than idle, vs off, but I highly doubt it was drawing 100%. Even more complicated is the heat. If they lived in a cool climate, at least some of the waste heat that was emitted would have been absorbed by the building, which they are (presumably) paying to heat at least a few months of the year. Edit: also if it was a public school, wouldn't they be off for about 3 months over summer ?
    - Alupis 11y ago
      > PSU's arent light bulbs You are right. I was just going off the source I found, which accounted for some of the aspects you point out, but not all. These numbers simply provide a rough estimate, and detail how the sys admin certainly did cost the school district real (and potentially very substantial) sums of money. > Even more complicated is the heat. You make a good case for the winter months, but the opposite would hold true for the summer months when the heat becomes a real issue and additional air conditioning may be necessary, etc... > Edit: also if it was a public school, wouldn't they be off for about 3 months over summer ? Not necessarily. Usually over the summer months (for a traditional schedule school as opposed to a year-round schedule like many public schools are these days) some of the staff is typically on campus monday-friday doing various administrative tasks, workshops, prepping for the next school session, moving classroom furniture, cleaning, etc... IT staff would be included in this, and therefore we can reasonably assume the sys admin was still running his systems.
tomswartz07 11y ago
All of that extra power really only amounts to tens of dollars per year. Running a processor at an extra (grossly exaggerating here) few watts + an extra 5-10 watts for fans, LEDs, etc don't amount to much. Especially when you consider that all electricity is paid for by the Thousand-Watts/Hour.

by nadams 11y ago

DanBC 11y ago

Advice used to be to not turn machines off but let themgo into sleep. This avoided power cycling which some people though caused problems. A sleeping machine still costs money, but much less than a machine churning SETI. 5,000 machines churning SETI for nine years? I'd be interested in estimates of cost.

mikeash 11y ago
Quick and inaccurate estimate: Let's say 100W per computer running at full blast, and assume 12 cents per kWh for electricity. Running for 9 years straight, that's about 5 million dollars. If they're running for 16 hours/day then it's more like 3 million dollars. Adjust other factors to taste, but "millions" sounds pretty reasonable.
sean13013 11y ago
If the machines were awake for 12 extra hours a day, and drew 100 watts, that's 0.1kW * 5000machines * 12hours = 6000kWh per day. Where I live, electricity costs about 20 cents per kWh. 0.2dollars * 6000kWh * 365days * 9years = $3.94 million.
Alupis 11y ago
Well, far from being definitive, but it looks like a regular pc will cost around $227.52 (350 watt psu, $18.96 per month) in electricity per year to run 24/7.[1] (calculated using $0.06 per kWh, which is rather low for most people in the US) So, 5,000 machines running 24/7/365 would cost around $1,137,600 annually (5,000 machines * $227.52 per year) in electricity usage alone. Of that 24 hours per day, we can assume 8 hours of each day the district expected to pay for them to run, so that leaves ~16 hours the district expected the machines to be asleep or off. 24 - 8 = 16 (about 66% of the 24 hour period) So, the admin was consuming about $12.51 per machine per month the district did not expect. This comes out to around $750,600 the sys admin potentially cost the district, for a single year. He ran this scheme for 9 years -- so... $750,600 per year * 9 years = $6,755,400 in additional electricity costs Keep in mind this is likely rather low, since most places in the US have a significantly higher per kWh fee than the $0.06 per kWh used in these calculations. I'm certain that this sum alone was enough cause to terminate the sys admin. Think about all the things the school district could have spent an extra ~$7MM+ on... [1] http://www.dslreports.com/faq/2404 http://www.dslreports.com/faq/2404
- redblacktree 11y ago
  Something is wrong with your math. $227.52/year is $0.62/day Also, bear in mind that PSUs do not use their full rating unless the hardware they are powering requires it. [0] Your number could easily be double what the machines actually used, if the PSU was somewhat oversized, as they typically are. [0]: https://superuser.com/questions/106792/does-a-power-supply-draw-only-as-much-power-as-it-needs https://superuser.com/questions/106792/does-a-power-supply-d...
  - Alupis 11y ago
    Sorry, type-o, math is still correct though. Meant it to say "per month" not "per day".
- digler999 11y ago
  > 350 watt psu, PSU's arent light bulbs. A "350 watt" psu doens't draw 350 watts. That's the theoretical maximum you can draw from it. Sure, SETI was probably drawing a higher load than idle, vs off, but I highly doubt it was drawing 100%. Even more complicated is the heat. If they lived in a cool climate, at least some of the waste heat that was emitted would have been absorbed by the building, which they are (presumably) paying to heat at least a few months of the year. Edit: also if it was a public school, wouldn't they be off for about 3 months over summer ?
  - Alupis 11y ago
    > PSU's arent light bulbs You are right. I was just going off the source I found, which accounted for some of the aspects you point out, but not all. These numbers simply provide a rough estimate, and detail how the sys admin certainly did cost the school district real (and potentially very substantial) sums of money. > Even more complicated is the heat. You make a good case for the winter months, but the opposite would hold true for the summer months when the heat becomes a real issue and additional air conditioning may be necessary, etc... > Edit: also if it was a public school, wouldn't they be off for about 3 months over summer ? Not necessarily. Usually over the summer months (for a traditional schedule school as opposed to a year-round schedule like many public schools are these days) some of the staff is typically on campus monday-friday doing various administrative tasks, workshops, prepping for the next school session, moving classroom furniture, cleaning, etc... IT staff would be included in this, and therefore we can reasonably assume the sys admin was still running his systems.

tomswartz07 11y ago

All of that extra power really only amounts to tens of dollars per year. Running a processor at an extra (grossly exaggerating here) few watts + an extra 5-10 watts for fans, LEDs, etc don't amount to much. Especially when you consider that all electricity is paid for by the Thousand-Watts/Hour.