Question about old computers and electricity use

I know this is not a desktop forum but this is kind of a general question. I need to set up an FTP server and I need to leave it on for days or even weeks at a time. So I have a very old 2001 Sony Vaio (desktop) with 512Mb of RAM. I don't want to risk ruining mt desktop or laptop by leaving them on all the time, so I was thinking about using the Vaio as the FTP server.

I'm worried about how much electricity it would consumed given that it's so old? Does it even matter? Uploading the files to a remote server is not gonna be practical for some of the files.

 

Go to a public library and see if they have a device like a Kill-A-Watt meter to measure.

 

There is nothing wrong with leaving it on for a extended time, I have a 6 year old desktop and it is still chugging along and it is on almost 24/7. I would recommend 1GB ram and if you have the original HD I would recommend getting a new one because they got a lot fast over the years and if it is IDE you might not be able to find them in the near future.

 

I'll assume this is an early Pentium 4, and yes it will use a fair bit more power than a new Core 2 duo or even a Quad.

if your running this for years it would be better to buy a new one, EEE-box comes to mind... it's cpu will be almost as fast as your 2001 machine, plus it uses next to nothing for power(20Watt).
For example. (assume the Sony uses around 300watt)
365x24x20watthour = 175.2Kwatthour per year
365x24x300watthour = 2,628Kwatthour per year.

so assuming 10 cents a kwatthour(10 just a easy number to use and most people pay about this).
EEE-Box cost 17.52$ to run for a year straight
your standing PC's cost to run = 262.80$ to run for a year.

in two years the EEEbox has saved about 490$ in energy which is about 150$ more than the EEEbox's cost.

just something to think about.

 

A basic Pentium 4 system will eat about 100W at idle and under light load. That's only as much as a high-power light bulb and pretty much the power consumption ceiling for old desktops. I've got an Athlon XP system doing server duty and that pulls about 80W at idle and under light load (measured via Kill-A-Watt).

So essentially you power up this system and turn off two light bulbs elsewhere, and you'll break even

 

If you have a CRT monitor turn on all the time It will suck more power than the CPU itself, so keeping it off is another watt saver.

 

i use my spare HP 2510p for my FTP server, with a 1.06ghz dual core cpu, 80gb internal drive and 2 500gb drives on the 2 spare UBS ports. i tape the two USB drives to the top lid of the cover and close it. i draw 14 watts at idle and 25 watts at max measured with a Kill-a-watt device.

 

But that's from an era when AMD's CPUs were very power efficient compared to the Pentium 4. I also have an AMD powered desktop which only uses 60W on idle (excluding monitor).

However, that's a lot power more than my Dell E6400 notebook which uses about 12W on idle. A netbook with 2.5" HDD would use slightly less power.

Yet another possible solution is to use a router which has a storage option. That would be less investment than a netbook and give even more power savings.

John

 

You should just run your FTP server within a virtual machine on your "mt desktop". That'll definetly save you a lot of money compared to running a dedicated ftp server. There's no harm done running your desktop 24/7. Also you won't be limited by the slow processor speed and the limited storage options on your old desktop computer.

Also... to the poster above, a netbook will probably use less energy than a router with "storage" capabilities because those ones tend to be those more "powerful routers". Netbook can idle below 5W without turning on the screen, keyboard, touchpad, lights, audio..etc.. Also a netbook is at least 10x more powerful than a router and have much more system resource to handle more complex jobs.