system standby?

[RB]

If I configure XP power scheme to goto system standby after x hours,
does it also turn off hard drives or do I have to set that separately above?
Additionally if I do set hard drives off (separate from system standby),
will they still "wake up" on system activity ?

 

[db ´¯`·.. >]

standby is a substitution
for what a screensaver
can provide.

instead, the hibernation
power mode is an ideal
method to shut down
the pc to save energy
and wear and to preserve
the state of you desktop
session.

if you want only a temporary
and short term power mode
then use a screensaver and
skip the standby mode.

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- Microsoft Partner
- @hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~"share the nirvana" - dbZen

 

[RB]

I read that in standby mode it actually lowers power down for
some system items including drives, at
http://www.terranovum.com/projects/energystar/standby_v_hiber.html
But what is confusing me is that the same window that configures system
standby also has a "Shut Down Hard Drives" option making me wonder if
that is necessary when using system standby.
------

 

[db ´¯`·.. >]

if the cpu is in standby then it
won't cycle the hard drives.

therefore, you can set them
to "never".

-------

incidentally, though I do not
want to deter you from using
the standby mode,

it does save more energy than
a fully powered up computer,

but not as much as hibernation
mode.

so it should be used only
as a temporary sleep mode;

whereas, you might want to
leave it in standby for 30 to
1 hour intervals, like for a
lunch period or going out
to check the mail, etc...

what occurs in standby is
that the state of your desktop
is saved in memory by using
very low power.

so if the external power goes
out, like during a black out or
the a/c plug gets disconnected
from the wall

then everything in memory
will be wiped away and the
machine will have to power
up and load the desktop as
a new session.

the other problem with standby
is that if you computer gets
infected with a "bot" or something
similar, then the infection can
actually bring you computer out
of standby and take control of
it, while your away.

on the other hand, hibernation
mode actually saves the state
of your desktop to the disk
in the hiber.sys file then power
down completely.

the computer can be powered
up in a hour or a day or a week
or a month, and will simply reload
the state of the desktop from the
hiber.sys file on the disk and back
into memory to resume your session
as you had left it.

it's your computer, so experiment
what is best for you and have
fun...!
--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- Microsoft Partner
- @hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~"share the nirvana" - dbZen

 

[Unknown]

The HD will be powered down when in standby. However you should always let
the HD power down when not in use.
Why let it spin? Example if you are doing work not requiring the HD let it
shut down. I have mine set to power down when idle for three minutes.

 

[RB]

"Unknown" wrote in message

The HD will be powered down when in standby. However you should always let
the HD power down when not in use.
Why let it spin? Example if you are doing work not requiring the HD let it
shut down. I have mine set to power down when idle for three minutes.

Thanks for the reply, actually I have thought about this but I have also read with
electric motors the 'Start up' stress from repeated startups from a dead rotor state,
would actually shorten the life span of the drive, not to mention twice the power
consumption on startup as opposed to cruising. Not sure on this yet, appreciate
any input from you or others on this.
Actually before the Green Power conservation thing got started, I remember when
I got my first computer in 1990 that they were saying that the motherboards and
circuit chips would actually last longer if you left your computer running all the time.
It prevented the "chip creep" from heat up and cool down. But obviously this would
not apply throughout all scenarios of fan bearings and motor bearings ?

 

[db ´¯`·.. >]

this might be of
interest to you
and to add to
your power scheme:

http://www.verdiem.com/edison.aspx


--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- Microsoft Partner
- @hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~"share the nirvana" - dbZen

 

[Unknown]

You are erroneously comparing a HD motor with other motors that, for
instance, drive tools.
The power consumption of a DC pulse motor is the same at start up as when
running.
You can be sure the manufacturers (such as Seagate) did a life test on the
drives
prior to release to manufacturing. My guess is the drive motor will outlive
you and I.

 

[Paul]

You are erroneously comparing a HD motor with other motors that, for
instance, drive tools.
The power consumption of a DC pulse motor is the same at start up as when
running.
You can be sure the manufacturers (such as Seagate) did a life test on the
drives
prior to release to manufacturing. My guess is the drive motor will outlive
you and I.

The motor type now uses FDB bearings. A fluid bearing has no friction,
once the lubricant starts to flow over the bearing surfaces. The
accelerated life test in Figure 3 here, shows a motor keeping its
lubricant, past 120,000 start/stop cycles.

http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/whitepaper/fdb_motor_tp574.pdf

While all the science is nice, drives still fail. It would really
be nice, if there was more post mortem information available, to
understand what kills the drives.

If I had to distrust something, it would be the actuator arm,
riding up the landing ramp. For Class 10 or Class 100 environments,
they really don't like parts to rub against one another. I'm real
curious what kind of garbage is shed at the landing ramp.

http://www.hitachigst.com/tech/tech...5825FB/$file/LoadUnload_white_paper_FINAL.pdf

Paul

 

[RB]

Hello, while such knowledgable entities on drives are here,
I have a question. In the old days (a term I tend to use more
as the years go by) we used to hear that one needed to be
carefull moving a computer while the drive was spinning since
the heads floated a fraction of distance above the platters on
a surface of air. We were told that if the platters were crashed
down upon the surface they would damage the data in that area.
Well over the years as I witnessed all kinds of abusive moving
of computers (while running) from both ignorant layman and
professional computer entities, I began to realize that either the
data that was being damaged was so slight it was never to be
realized or else the surface of air was doing a very good job of protection.
The companies I worked for had numerous occurances of such
abuse but only a couple of drive failures in say a 6 year period.
Any input on this ?

 

[BillW50]

In RB typed on Tue, 19 May 2009 09:15:24 -0400:

Hello, while such knowledgable entities on drives are here,
I have a question. In the old days (a term I tend to use more
as the years go by) we used to hear that one needed to be
carefull moving a computer while the drive was spinning since
the heads floated a fraction of distance above the platters on
a surface of air. We were told that if the platters were crashed
down upon the surface they would damage the data in that area.
Well over the years as I witnessed all kinds of abusive moving
of computers (while running) from both ignorant layman and
professional computer entities, I began to realize that either the
data that was being damaged was so slight it was never to be
realized or else the surface of air was doing a very good job of
protection. The companies I worked for had numerous occurances of such
abuse but only a couple of drive failures in say a 6 year period.
Any input on this ?

Back in the early days, drives couldn't take much of a shock before
damage. Plus those old drives, wouldn't automatically mark bad sectors
either. You had to do it manually. Nowadays IDE drives automatically
seek, mark, and hide bad sectors and the user never knows about it. So
damage could be being done, but one will not likely even see any
evidence of it. The shock factor is still there, but takes a much
greater force than ever before.

I still don't trust hard drives in portable devices unless you don't
move them while they are operating. Thus laptops with hard drives, I
really see as portable desktops. As you can't really carry them around
too much as the hard drive is still sensitive to shocks.

Thus for true portability, I love these new drives called solid state
drives (SSD). As they can take plenty of shock while running or not. And
all of those problems with conventional hard drives disappear. I
actually use them a lot. I'm using a netbook right now connected to an
external monitor and wireless keyboard/mouse. Works and feels like a
desktop. Pull a few cables and I am portable.

 

[Paul]

Hello, while such knowledgable entities on drives are here,
I have a question. In the old days (a term I tend to use more
as the years go by) we used to hear that one needed to be
carefull moving a computer while the drive was spinning since
the heads floated a fraction of distance above the platters on
a surface of air. We were told that if the platters were crashed
down upon the surface they would damage the data in that area.
Well over the years as I witnessed all kinds of abusive moving
of computers (while running) from both ignorant layman and
professional computer entities, I began to realize that either the
data that was being damaged was so slight it was never to be
realized or else the surface of air was doing a very good job of protection.
The companies I worked for had numerous occurances of such
abuse but only a couple of drive failures in say a 6 year period.
Any input on this ?

If you check this slide set, they're considering setting the
flying height to zero

http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/research/storage/hdi/minimizingspacing.html

So the design has changed a lot over the years. The setup is
more resistant to damage (can take 35x more shock), and if you
look over those slide sets, you can see some of their thinking.
The active layer is below the surface just a bit, as shown here.

http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/research/storage/im/index.html

I don't think this lubricant bears any resemblance to what
was used years ago, either.

http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/research/storage/im/degradation.html

There definitely was a time, when handling in the field caused
damage. I was sent on a field trip once, to a site that claimed
a high failure rate for our product, and yes, shock and vibration
can damage disks When I was sent on the trip, I didn't
think I'd catch anyone doing something stupid. I got lucky...

There is still a disconnect though, between all the science,
and the observed behavior. Disks are still failing, and
it would be interesting to see the post mortem statistics,
as to what is causing the failures.

How can you build something that precise, at $40 retail price ?
It boggles the mind.

Paul

 

[db ´¯`·.. >]

yes,

hard drive now adays
are far more superior
than those of yester
years.

but still, some care
should be taken with
them anyways.

I recall back in the old
days parking the arm
was a big deal, especially
when transporting the
drives.

also, I recall that since
the pc's could either be
standing horizontally or
vertically,

it was necessary to keep
whatever position the pc
was in when the o.s. was
installed.

fortunately things have
changed and I can hardly
wait for the time when
rotating disks are replaced
by chips or "crystals".

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- Microsoft Partner
- @hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~"share the nirvana" - dbZen