[Leaplist] Power mitigation, diskless v. truly thin, virtualization and/or remote -- WAS: Scanner Setup Help?

[Kevin Korb]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I do not have hardware for thin clients.  I generally have 1 or 2 high
end systems and my other computers are simply the old ones or at least
parts of the old ones.  So my diskless systems are simply PC type
hardware running with PXE/tftp boot and NFS filesystems.

Don't discount the power savings of removing hard drives.  The 2.5"
drives may use less power to spin but they cost significantly more money
and they still generate a significant amount of heat which your A/C must
compete with.  Plus people like me tend to use RAID1 as a minimum so
every hard drive I remove from service is really 2 of them.

The way I see it I replaced the two internal hard drives in 6 computers
(12 drives total) with an extra 2 in my server.

Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> Kevin Korb wrote:  
>> I think it is better to centralize storage and then make
>> desktops diskless whenever possible.  Cuts down on the noise,
>> heat, and power consumption.
> 
> Diskless or truly thin (remote execution)?
> 
> Also remember that a typical 2.5" drive only uses 2-2.5W of power,
> far, far less than even a typical, low-end chipset, let alone the
> 12-20W of a typical 3.5" drive.  Even 10-15,000rpm 2.5" drives use
> less power than commodity 3.5" 7200rpm and even "green" 5400-7200
> variable 3.5" drives.
> 
> The cost savings is really in the TCO more than power.  I've been
> through this ROI game with numerous fiscal and retail customers
> over the last half-decade.  Typical PC TCO is $500 just on the
> servicing, which makes diskless and, even more so, thin clients
> a major sell.  The power difference is less than 1/10th that.
> 
> In all honesty, running with ARM instead x86 (instead of Atom as
> well) is far, far more of a cost saver.  There are several new
> NAS appliances hitting the market now that are a low-power ARM
> with dual-2.5" (not 3.5") bays.  Small in size, and they run on
> 12V @ 2A, typically sub-20W total.
> 
> Jason Boxman wrote:
>> It's all on the server(s).  The workstation is just RAID 1.
>> I like to keep virtual machine storage local to my workstation.
> 
> People confuse virtualization and remote desktop.  No one advocates
> virtualization over a remote mount.  However, virtualization providing
> a remote desktop is a whole different story.  ;)
> 
> Red Hat bought the upstream maintainer of KVM for more than just KVM.
> Although control of a major upstream componen tlike KVM is trademark
> Red Hat, especially when the vendor is dabbling with proprietary
> software (and Red Hat wants to bring a quick and complete end to that).
> 
> 

- --
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~
	Kevin Korb			Phone:    (407) 252-6853
	Systems Administrator		Internet:
	FutureQuest, Inc.		Kevin at FutureQuest.net  (work)
	Orlando, Florida		kmk at sanitarium.net (personal)
	Web page:			http://www.sanitarium.net/
	PGP public key available on web site.
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkpn9x4ACgkQVKC1jlbQAQe5yQCcDYeA9BgpZknQSY+BGwQzpPPf
3fIAnjuN6ATmitU5aqpyuAGB0yr+SZXW
=P5rE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.