"I recently upgraded a server I had running at home, it was a Windows 2k3 install which I believe is what is under the covers of Home Server.
Originally it was a 1.4GHz single Athlon with 1 Gb ram and 5 HDDs - headless system.
Power Consumption: 192W (4.6 Kwh a day)
Replaced with a 2.4Ghz Quad core Intel, 8 Gb ram and 4 HDDs again headless.
Power Consumption: 106W (2.5 Kwh a day).
I was very impressed at the power saving for a better machine! And as I run Hyper-V on it I was able to run the old server image, my build machine, a Home Server virtual machine and others all on the one box so it was well worth the upgrade.
I believe the dedicated home servers are designed to be low power but if you add lots of external HDDs with their own power supplied add about 15w (0.36 Kwh a day) for each one.
All the values were measured with a cheap plug in module so probably not especially accurate."
"An old rule of thumb I used to use was $200 per year per PC. However, this was several years back. Things have changed significantly since then, both in terms of $ per watt (higher now) and watts per PC (higher, I think, than in 1999, but actually down I think in the last couple years).
Taking that as a starting point though, if you figure a PC lasts for 5 years that's $1000, or double the cost of a basic computer. If you can halve the power use of the PC you'll shave $500 off the TCO, or roughly $9/mo. But again, things have changed.
I know another big difference is that my old estimates included display power costs. Early LCDs used significantly less power than CRTs, to the point where they'd pay for themselves fairly quickly in many business scenarios where the display was on 8hrs or more per day (this is how LCDs achieved the economy of scale to get so cheap so quickly... businesses that were also watching power consumption would purchase them early, even at higher initial price points). Recent LCD displays are brighter and use more power again (update: the switch to LED negates this). However, the machine the OP asked about will likely be headless, and that will throw my estimate off even further.
As a final note, the reason the $200 per year number has stuck so long in my head is that it stayed true for a very long time. Given there are a number of factors affecting it in both directions, such as increased energy costs, increased overall requirements, followed by improved efficiency and removing the need to power a display, the number may not be all that far off after all. It's likely determined as much by the economics of what people are will to pay and can afford as it is by technical matters, and if that's true, the estimate will hold for some time to come."
"Notice, though, that there are three things consuming electricity:
The monitor -- a good monitor with Windows correctly configured will spend just a few watts per hour. Measure it, though, even if it is ""turned off"". The computer's power supply. All electricity consumed inside the computer goes through it, and the performance of the power suppy is very important. A little bit more money to get a more efficient power supply is justified for servers nowadays. The no-break inherent power loss. Everything that transforms electricity consumes some of it, unless you are talking super-conductors. If it produces heat, then it's consuming electricity.
I recommend you measure each of these things separately (of course, the no-break measure will give the total for it and the computer), and consider alternatives available in the market with better energy efficiency.
I'm a Windows user, I'm a PROUD user of Windows Vista 64, and think anyone staying with XP or 32 is a sissie. I'm not calling anyone names (those XP and 32 bits-users aside), I'm not even denigrating Microsoft or its products -- and God knows that, as a user, I'm entitled and have reason for that at times.
And, finally, this is an answer, and not even a particularly good one information-wise, though I certainly answered to question to the extent of my knowledge. So if you don't like the humour in it, go ahead and vote it down. But, as there is a bitter truth to my remark on the destiny of souls, I'd very much appreciate it being left there." "Notice, though, that there are three things consuming electricity:
The monitor -- a good monitor with Windows correctly configured will spend just a few watts per hour. Measure it, though, even if it is ""turned off"". The computer's power supply. All electricity consumed inside the computer goes through it, and the performance of the power suppy is very important. A little bit more money to get a more efficient power supply is justified for servers nowadays. The no-break inherent power loss. Everything that transforms electricity consumes some of it, unless you are talking super-conductors. If it produces heat, then it's consuming electricity.
I recommend you measure each of these things separately (of course, the no-break measure will give the total for it and the computer), and consider alternatives available in the market with better energy efficiency.
I'm a Windows user, I'm a PROUD user of Windows Vista 64, and think anyone staying with XP or 32 is a sissie. I'm not calling anyone names (those XP and 32 bits-users aside), I'm not even denigrating Microsoft or its products -- and God knows that, as a user, I'm entitled and have reason for that at times.
And, finally, this is an answer, and not even a particularly good one information-wise, though I certainly answered to question to the extent of my knowledge. So if you don't like the humour in it, go ahead and vote it down. But, as there is a bitter truth to my remark on the destiny of souls, I'd very much appreciate it being left there."
"If you have a budget around $500+ then you could build a Windows Home Server with this and it only consumes around 80W (http://www.mini-box.com/PicoPSU-120-WI-25-12-25V-DC-DC-ATX-power-supply ).
