Leaving Mac On -- Advantages / Disadvantages
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: D Finnigan on 17 Feb 2010 11:48 heron stone wrote: > In article <7tvontF194U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft(a)me.com> wrote: > >> Except when I have my MacBook Pro away from home I leave it >> continuously on, having the display go to sleep after five minutes of >> inactivity. Leaving it on during the night is so that the nightly >> maintenance routines and my scheduled backups will run. What I'd be >> interested in knowing is what disadvantages are there to leaving my >> computer on in this manner. > > .i got my first mac in 1984 > .i've left all my computers on 24-7 since 1988 > .two have been MBPs > > .i've had no problems related to leaving them on > I only leave my Mac on overnight if it's running some job which I personally initiated. The last time I needed to do that was over a month ago, but I've had some jobs last as long as 4 - 7 days without stop (lots of data to process). But otherwise, if I'm not using the Mac, off it goes. It spends more time off than on.
From: thepixelfreak on 17 Feb 2010 11:58 On 2010-02-17 08:37:08 -0800, Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> said: > In article 2010021707590316807-not(a)dotcom, thepixelfreak at not(a)dot.com > wrote on 2/17/10 10:59 AM: > >> On 2010-02-17 00:30:52 -0800, Nick Naym >> <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> said: >> >>> In article 2010021622124216807-not(a)dotcom, thepixelfreak at not(a)dot.com >>> wrote on 2/17/10 1:12 AM: >>> >>>> On 2010-02-16 19:03:15 -0800, Davoud <star(a)sky.net> said: >>>> >>>>> Nick Naym: >>>>>> There seems to be two schools of thought: One, which takes the position >>>>>> that >>>>>> leaving the machine on 24X7 shortens its life due to the wear & tear of >>>>>> constant operation; the other, which believes that the wear & tear of >>>>>> constant operation is minimal compared to the cumulative stress caused by >>>>>> repeated, daily powering up and shutting down. >>>>> >>>>> Bzzzzzt! The "stress" caused to a piece of electronic gear by turning >>>>> it on and off is pure myth. Study after study, some published and some >>>>> not, and tons of empirical evidence support that. >>>> >>>> Bzzzzzzzzt! I've worked for a Supercomputer manufacturer for the past >>>> 15 years and a total of 20 in the computer industry. I _routinely_ see >>>> plenty of real world evidence to the contrary. The machines we make >>>> have many thousands (8192 cores currently) and many many Terabytes of >>>> memory and Petabytes to Exabytes of attached rotational disk media. I >>>> am also a professional member of the ACM (Association of Computing >>>> Machinery) and have read numerous articles suggesting what you do. >>>> These articles DO NOT agree with my experience. >>>> >>>> Many of the studies (not all) you posit deal with statistically >>>> insignificant numbers of components. The very large component count >>>> machines we make (whether they be large NUMA SMP machines or large >>>> cluster supercomputers) exhibit statistically significant component >>>> failure after power has been removed for significant periods of time. >>>> These effect tend to manifest themselves more in rotational media than >>>> integrated circuits but nonetheless I see it in all components. >>>> >>>> That said, untoward effects of the power cycle on desktop computers >>>> with relatively very few components these days is likely to be rather >>>> minimal. >>> >>> That would beg the question as to how the effect of cycling the power on/off >>> -- however minimal that effect may be -- compares to the effect of leaving >>> the power on 24X7. Your _actual_ experience suggests that the comparison >>> still would favor letting the machines -- especially the HDs -- run full >>> time. >> >> My experience suggest that it can be a very bad thing to let a large >> system cool off for protracted periods of time after long periods of >> steady state runtime. My position is that small desktop computers don't >> have a large enough component part count (memory gates, processor >> transistors etc.) to make much of a difference whether or not they are >> left running. >> >> I have 5 computers here in my home office. 3 are running all the time >> and are never turned off (granted the iMac does go to sleep on the >> weekends). Two others are always off until some project requires their >> service and are promptly turned off when no longer needed. There are >> also two laptops elsewhere in the house that are in various states of >> power so they feel the brunt of the power cycle more than any others. >> All are fine. >> > > I assume that the machines are of various ages, have been running the way > you describe for different periods of time (long enough to reach a > meaningful conclusion), and that neither their ages nor operating times > appear to have any relevance to their "health." Correct? There are 4 SGI Unix workstations, one Core 2 Duo iMac (late 2006) one Powerbook G4 (2004) and one MacBook Pro (mid 2009). The unix workstations are all older than 10 years with 15 years being the longest. Missing from he home is my G4 Cube (2001) which I donated to my computer challenged Mother back in 2006. It's running admirably. Two of the Unix workstations I use at a minimum 5 days a week (more if I'm on-call) at least 8 hours a day. I work from home and have done so since 2001. The iMac sees as much use and has since 2006. The G4 powerbook has been on 4 continents with me on business travel. -- thepixelfreak
From: Nick Naym on 17 Feb 2010 12:09 In article C7A18A85.534EE%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid, Nick Naym at nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid wrote on 2/17/10 11:59 AM: .... .... > How certain I am remains to be seen. My analysis leads me to believe it very > well may extend my computer's life. You've offered nothing beyond surmises > based upon what appears to me to be faulty analogies and a strong desire ( > strong enough, perhaps, to unduly influence your "conclusion") to change my > mind. To clarify: I didn't mean that you personally had a strong desire to "change my mind" (although I believe that you do). I meant that your argument -- based entirely (as it seems to be) on faulty analogies and an apparent "energy agenda" -- was insufficient for me to "change my mind." -- iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)
From: Wes Groleau on 17 Feb 2010 12:50 nospam wrote: > none. the nightly routines run when you wake it. Mine don't. One of my periodic tasks (weekly, IIRC) is a reboot. OS X doesn't need it, but if an app has a memory leak, a reboot will trim the swap files back down to size. -- Wes Groleau I've noticed lately that the paranoid fear of computers becoming intelligent and taking over the world has almost entirely disappeared from the common culture. Near as I can tell, this coincides with the release of MS-DOS. -- Larry DeLuca
From: Bill who putters on 17 Feb 2010 13:48
In article <hlha88$sh9$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: > nospam wrote: > > none. the nightly routines run when you wake it. > > Mine don't. > > One of my periodic tasks (weekly, IIRC) is a reboot. > > OS X doesn't need it, but if an app has a memory leak, > a reboot will trim the swap files back down to size. I do the same. Guess I noticed sluggish and found a reboot fixed it. Can this be done without a reboot ? Bill over his head. -- Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA |