Slashdot Mirror


The Cost of Distributed Client Computing?

ialbert asks: "I only recently decided to install SETI@home on my mostly idle home computer. It got me thinking though, are those free processor cycles truly free? Has anyone had experience with processors dying prematurely due to a constant, heavy load, or is usage pretty inconsequential? What about other components, like harddrives? And how much does a 100% processor load increase your power bill versus a 1-2% idle load over the course of a year? It's easy to think of idle computers as an untapped computational resource, but what are the costs to the computer owners?"

7 of 527 comments (clear)

  1. the math by proj_2501 · · Score: 4, Informative

    somebody worked this out when i started the e2 distributed.net team.

    the figures

  2. Power by DaHat · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've found that on my laptop, the cost of running seti@home cuts my battery life in half, so when I care about power I am sure to leave it off, however, when ever it's plugged in, it like the rest of my boxes are chugging away. When it comes to power costs I don't really care currently as I don't pay my electricity, it's included with my rent and believe you me I make good use of that.

    As for premature death of CPU, being under heavy load should not hurt it, powering on and off often does far more 'wear and tear'.

  3. 50 Watts increase at 100% CPU Load by eaglebtc · · Score: 5, Informative
    I have a Pentium 4 @ 2.6GHz, overclocked to 3.2GHz. My power strip is plugged into a great little device: the Kill-A-Watt wattmeter. I can track my electricity usage over time by Volts, amps, Watts, VA, and it keeps a log of the kWh consumed by a particular device.

    When Folding@Home is turned off, my power consumption for the entire system is 140W. When I activate Folding@Home, the Wattmeter reading jumps to about 190-195W.

    So if you're concerned about electricity usage in your house, then yes, distributed computing sucks more power.

    --
    Homestarrunner.net -- It's Dot Com!
  4. Some Measurements. by taliver · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm kinda in a position to answer at least one part of this question.

    CPu's, when idle, can use as little as 2-5W. When fully utilized, up to 40-50W (depending on the make/model/etc). So let's assume you have a middle of the road processor that has a difference of 25W between active and idle. (This is consistant with measurements on a PIII 800MHz, a little lower than middle of the road.)

    Now, 25W * 24Hrs * 365 days * 1kw/1000W * $0.10/kWhr = $21/year. Roughly $1/year per Watt of additional power.

    As far as breaking of components, as well as the system is cooled properly, I wouldn't think it would be a problem.

    --

    I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!

  5. Energy costs by p7 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Check this website for a breakdown of the energy costs.

    http://www.dslreports.com/faq/2404

  6. Re:Wear Out by randyest · · Score: 4, Informative

    Right, and the standard in the ASIC industry is a 40 year lifetime minimum before electromigration will lead to failure in normal use (which means yo keep the chip in the allowed operating temperature range, regardless of if it's overclocked or not). That's 40 years. What hardware were you using 40 years ago?

    Point is, even running chips hot, to a degree, (pun not intended) doesn't reduce their lifetime enough to worry.

    Some of the other points, such as increased power use, and accelerated failure of mechanical components such as hard drives, are valid. But chip wear-out is a non issue -- you'd have to heat your chip past the point of system stability to get the em lifetime down low enough to care about it.

    --
    everything in moderation
  7. Re:Processors dying... by default+luser · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, the grandparent post is incorrect.

    Pentium IV CPUs have an internal temperture diode, just like every Intel chip since the Pentium II Deschutes core ( excluding early Celerons ).

    As opposed to all chips before it, the Pentium IV will do more than just crash when overheating. It will dynamically reduce it's own clock speed to reduce power consumption. But this feature will only come into play when the cooling solution is unable to keep up with the processor ( IE: dead fan, extremely hot room ), and will not affect performance under normal conditions.

    What the parent was referring to is the HLT instruction, which will cause the processor to do nothing and reduce power use. Most modern processors support it, and most modern operating systems ( including NT and Linux ) execute these instructions in an idle thread.

    This is basically the concept of this discussion: will your computer run hotter under load rather than running idle HLT commands?

    The answer is yes. What this means to you in terms of silicon lifetime is probably beyond the expertise of anyone here on Slashdot, so take every "insight" with a bag of salt.

    --

    Man is the animal that laughs.
    And occasionally whores for Karma.