Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!paperboy!yee From: yee@osf.org (Michael K. Yee) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware Subject: Re: Leaving the Mac on Message-ID: Date: 25 Feb 91 20:23:55 GMT References: <9262.27c24f4a@cc.newcastle.edu.au> <39523@cup.portal.com> Sender: news@OSF.ORG Organization: Open Software Foundation Lines: 33 In-reply-to: hamilton@kickapoo.cs.iastate.edu's message of 23 Feb 91 22:22:20 GMT In article hamilton@kickapoo.cs.iastate.edu (Jon Hamilton) writes: > John_Richard_Bruni@cup.portal.com writes: >> If, indeed, leaving one`s computer on does result in longer MTBF, then one ^^^^^^^^^^^ >> needs to know how much pollution is eliminated by not having to use more >> energy and resources to build more computers. ... > got another variable to consider. I leave mine on for several reasons: > increased MTBF, heat generation (we have an electric furnace, so it's about ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > the same efficiency), and I don't like waiting for my machine to boot every > time I want to use it. UNIX filesystems are much nicer (less fragmented) when > you leave the machine on and idle for a while. I like to know how MTBF (mean time between failure) is INCREASED by leaving a hard drive on? Isn't MTBF expressed in hours? So it should follow that the less time you have the drive on, the longer it should last, right? What am I missing here? Is there an implied reduction in MTBF each time I cycle power on a drive (i.e. minus NN% MTBF per power cycle)? BTW: Why would a UNIX filesystems automagically become less fragmented if you leave the machine idling? No file access happens when the system is "idle". Does A/UX automatically do hard disk optimization when the system is idle? =Mike -- = Michael K. Yee -- yee@osf.org or uunet!osf.org!yee -- = OSF/Motif Development = "I can't give you brains, but I can give you a diploma." -- The Wizard of OZ