What's new

Never turn off router?

  • SNBForums Code of Conduct

    SNBForums is a community for everyone, no matter what their level of experience.

    Please be tolerant and patient of others, especially newcomers. We are all here to share and learn!

    The rules are simple: Be patient, be nice, be helpful or be gone!

It depends on the PSU. Some higher end PSU uses more watts when plugged in since they use active components.

Oh, it does depend to some degree. However, I've tested at least 40 different machines with a variety of different PSUs from bargain basement ones to 80+ Platinum PSUs and with ratings from 280w up to 750w and I never saw one that drew more than 5w when off (not WOL S5, but off).
 
I figure my server rack cost me $10 a month. I would think I run a couple hundred watts. I have 2 servers, one being a software firewall, a 28 port switch, a extra isolated small switch to work on virus problems, a router, a video switch to switch between servers, a couple of poe adapters, a large APC, modem, and a monitor which is only on when I am using it.

This stuff is too much trouble to shutdown and restart. It just runs in the background. I hardly mess with it any more. I just expect everything to work. Any equipment which can not run for more than a year is discarded and replaced.

Depends on your electric rates. Mine are 14 cents per kwh once you figure in supply and transmission costs (raw generation cost is about 9 cents per kwh). Pretty average for the US and it works out to almost exactly $1 per year per watt if consumed 24/7 .

So a 200w rack would be a little less than $20 a month at my rates (I don't remember, but I feel like you mentioned you were in NY on Con Edison paying about twice my rates, which makes it more like $40 a month). Plus you've gotta figure in maybe an extra $10 a month in AC costs from about May till late September. Though offset by maybe $10 a month in heating costs from mid November till mid March (cooling season is somewhat longer where I live than the heating season).

Certainly something I'd look at to try to cut power consumption corners wherever the heck I could. Maybe not by turning things off, but judicious use of S3 during periods where you never need availability. Appropriate component choice. Modernizing older equipment. Etc.

I have a lot less, but my 2 switches, MoCA bridge, server and UPS draw a total of 40w at idle. My router and two APs are not on the rack, but they contribute a total of <20w to that (I think about 17). One AP gets shut off from 12am-8am daily (mechanical outlet timer) and the server is in S3 from 12:30am till 6:45am daily, which shaves about 16w off my rack power consumption for a bit over 6hrs a day.

Total network cost is around $50 a year. I'd certainly like to find ways to cut power further. I am thinking I'll eventually consolidate to a single 24 port switch, instead of 2x16 port. Toss/sell one of the 16 port and leave the other 16 port as a cold back-up. That should shave about 3-5w. Switching from my current machine to one with dual Intel NICs on the motherboard, DDR4 and a brand spanking new Skylake Celeron/Pentium/i3 once those drop on the market might well shave off another 3-7w (and give a nice wallop of extra computing power over my Ivy Bridge G1610). Might keep the same PSU. Only a bronze rated 380w Antec Earthwatts, but of all of the testing I have seen, they are still one of the most power efficient units out there in the <50w use range, beating out most gold rated <400w PSUs. Only in the >50w range are they less efficient (the only PSU I know of that is better at <50w is about $120...and it might shave 1w, maybe 2 off my idle power consumption figures).

Of course I am not going to drop $350-500 only to save 6-12w of power, about 30-60 years of payback period. I am doing it in part to simplify design (single switch instead of 2, only use 22 ports right now, and 4 of them are used as the uplink between switches, so I'd only use 18 if I moved to a 24 port switch. Unlikely to install more than another 3-4 ports in the next 5 years). Plus the extra performance of more memory bandwidth and probably 25-50% more processing power.
 
That is great for people that make it to retirement age. But I've seen many friends, family and read about many others that never get there and thinking that the pile of money in their bank account (or their parent's) was a sad and lost opportunity of the life they could have had.

Not saying to spend what you have foolishly. But having money in the bank only has some possible meaning if every other area of your life is lived with balance too.

The way I see it, saving money (excessively) is another way to be wasteful. Really. It is not doing anyone any good except for the bankers if it is only being stockpiled and never used. The joy and freedom it can bring (especially when it isn't used just for 'us', but rather, for others too) is far more beneficial than the false sense of security it provides otherwise.

Again, balance is the key. But if I see a need (not extravagance) for any savings I've created (for myself or immediate others); the money is used and spent. With any luck, in the near future I'll be able to save up once again and do it all over. But what I don't want is to die with more than $5* to my name (that would be the ultimate waste, for me) when all is said and done. Inheritance you ask (for my family)? I think that is the worst thing I could wish for anyone. Especially anyone I loved. Just look how lotto winners lives become wreaked, as an example.


*Pick any amount you feel is 'enough' here.

Ehhh. I guess I just have vastly different experiences in my life. Inheritance hasn't ruined anyone's life I know of. My in-laws have a trust setup to divide up their assets upon death where 50% goes to my generations and 50% to the next younger generation at appropriate ages (hopefully they live long enough that we would just get 100% of our "share" up front, because I want them to live very long and healthy lives, not because I want all of the money at once). I don't count on the money, but you know what, it would make for a much nicer retirement. It would also allow us to use the money to help out our kids and possible future grandkids. In heritance didn't ruin my parents or aunts and uncles. It isn't like my family or in-laws are rich or ever have been and have or would drop millions of dollars on us. We are pretty comfortably middle class, maybe even upper middle class (by national income standards, not local, local solidly middle class). In the end, so long as I don't screw up my retirement savings, it would be at best a moderately large fraction of our own savings some day.

Where you get screwed up people from having a pile of money dropped on them are people who didn't have any financial sense to begin with.

I do agree, I can't take it with me and I'd rather spend it making me and mine happy now. However, I CAN leave it for mine some day to help them out. I'd rather help them when they are younger in need for more help, but I am also not going to be my kids' or grandkids' "sugar daddy" through their young adult life.

I do cut costs where it is reasonable to do it. For the starbucks example. It costs me about $1 per cup of coffee to make French press coffee every morning, taking maybe 5 minutes of my time to make a 2-cup batch for myself and my wife. That actually saves time and costs a lot less than my wife and I buying a cup of joe every morning. I try to do as much of that sort of thing as I can. It adds up over years.
 
Depends on your electric rates. Mine are 14 cents per kwh once you figure in supply and transmission costs (raw generation cost is about 9 cents per kwh). Pretty average for the US and it works out to almost exactly $1 per year per watt if consumed 24/7 .

Wow, you count your pennies even better than me. Pretty much everything I buy now has power usage as a major consideration. My newly built pfSense based home router uses a fanless Supermicro motherboard with a J1900 processor and costs almost nothing to run a year (OTOH, I spent about $400 to build it ... a much less powerful build would have cost maybe $100 less ... this box has alternate uses if I ever decide to switch it up). If the pfSense thermometer is correct, it runs at 26.8C constantly. My small QNAP NAS costs maybe 50 cents a month to run. I just put LED bulbs around the house and now can afford to turn on my lights and leave them on ... all without needing to turn up the air conditioner to offset the effect from extra light bulb heat. One room went from 350 watts to about 65 watts with more light now, and LED bulbs cost even less now. Laptops replaced desktops and tablets are slowly replacing laptops.
 
Last edited:
Oh, it does depend to some degree. However, I've tested at least 40 different machines with a variety of different PSUs from bargain basement ones to 80+ Platinum PSUs and with ratings from 280w up to 750w and I never saw one that drew more than 5w when off (not WOL S5, but off).
try a 1.5KW PSU that isnt cheap and accepts both 120V and 240V coupled with an evga high end motherboard (the older iseries).
 
try a 1.5KW PSU that isnt cheap and accepts both 120V and 240V coupled with an evga high end motherboard (the older iseries).

Since that covers about .001% of computers in use...sure, I'll consider those systems :)

Almost all PSUs I am aware of accept 120 or 240V btw.

AdHomeServer, I always consider power consumption in any purchase. Beyond being a greenie, I also consider future costs.

My questions are
-How long is it likely to last
-How long am I likely to use it till I might want to replace it (supposing it lasts longer than it's expected life cycle)
-How much does it cost to operate (not just power consumption, but for things that use consumables, how efficient is it)
-What does it get me

The later is potentially less of a tangible, but if I need or really want much more performance then I am willing to sacrifice in other categories. It doesn't have to be the most efficient thing possible if it doesn't provide the performance I need and to a lesser degree want (cars, computers, networking gear, lights, toilets, faucets, what-have-you). This includes how fast it is, how usable it is, aesthetics, etc.

Power consumption/total cost of ownership however is pretty high up on my list of considerations. It is also one of my frustrations that things that use electricity are not universally required to state their typical operating power at least when off, but plugged in, at idle, with a typical load and under maximum workload. Not simply computers (as packaged systems), but networking switches, fridges, etc. Yes, most appliances have to have an energy use guide, but it is still often useful to know things like maximum and typical draw (for example, sizing a generator or inverter). A lot of things the information is no where to be found (most networking gear manufacturers do not state power consumption except with some enterprise gear).
 
azazel1024 I have no idea why you would think I am from NY. If you look at my name where the posts are you will see TEXAS. No where close to NY. I am sure we have cheaper electric rates than NY. I still run $200 to $300 dollars a month of electricity in the summer months. $20 is not much.

All my equipment has been hand picked over the years base on reliability. My equipment will run a year or more without requiring any attention. As stuff dies off I will replace it. The newer stuff is more energy efficient but it's not worth testing when I already have something which works really well.

You should replace your 2 16 switches with one 24 port switch since you are running multiple pipes from your servers. Having one backplane is faster than 2 with larger than GIG client pipes. I know maybe you have 3 or 4 ports linked together to bond the switches but 1 backplane is better. I would recommend a layer 3 switch you will be amazed at what one of these cheaper layer 3 switches can do. I have worked on many big Cisco switches in the past and I know what they can do but they are real expensive. I was afraid of the smaller cheaper ones thinking it would not be very good but the smaller Cisco layer 3 switch I got works really well and fast. I wish I had protocol routing to play with but oh well.
 
Off topic ... yes. Hope you enjoy the extravagant lifestyle Social Security offers you. Of course, your data processing skills will always remain current and last forever and people will always want what you offer. Maybe you'll live fast, die young, and have a beautiful corpse. Or be grateful for the opportunity to greet people at the big box store 20 hours a week.

You obviously missed the part where I said 'balance' is key. The point is that life is almost always everything you didn't plan for. ;)
 
perhaps it would just be much cheaper to build a tiny nuclear reactor to power your house for a life time and electricity would than be very very cheap since you would than just have to pay for the reactor, some nuclear source and the cooling system once. Or you can dig deep and use geothermal. Than you wont have to worry about power consumption anymore.
 
perhaps it would just be much cheaper to build a tiny nuclear reactor to power your house for a life time and electricity would than be very very cheap since you would than just have to pay for the reactor, some nuclear source and the cooling system once. Or you can dig deep and use geothermal. Than you wont have to worry about power consumption anymore.
This does make a foolish impression.
 
That is great for people that make it to retirement age. But I've seen many friends, family and read about many others that never get there and thinking that the pile of money in their bank account (or their parent's) was a sad and lost opportunity of the life they could have had.

Not saying to spend what you have foolishly. But having money in the bank only has some possible meaning if every other area of your life is lived with balance too.

The way I see it, saving money (excessively) is another way to be wasteful. Really. It is not doing anyone any good except for the bankers if it is only being stockpiled and never used. The joy and freedom it can bring (especially when it isn't used just for 'us', but rather, for others too) is far more beneficial than the false sense of security it provides otherwise.

Again, balance is the key. But if I see a need (not extravagance) for any savings I've created (for myself or immediate others); the money is used and spent. With any luck, in the near future I'll be able to save up once again and do it all over. But what I don't want is to die with more than $5* to my name (that would be the ultimate waste, for me) when all is said and done. Inheritance you ask (for my family)? I think that is the worst thing I could wish for anyone. Especially anyone I loved. Just look how lotto winners lives become wreaked, as an example.


*Pick any amount you feel is 'enough' here.


Just one more short OT comment...as a retired person with children, the only thing that I agree with in the above posting is that "life is a balance", and that should factor into all of one's decisions. The rest is so different than my life experiences and those of the other retired people that I know, that I felt I had to comment on this. Hope that this works for you, it would not have for me or the people that I know well.
 
Just one more short OT comment...as a retired person with children, the only thing that I agree with in the above posting is that "life is a balance", and that should factor into all of one's decisions. The rest is so different than my life experiences and those of the other retired people that I know, that I felt I had to comment on this. Hope that this works for you, it would not have for me or the people that I know well.

Glad that you haven't had to endure many tragedies and I hope that continues indefinitely. As for it working for me; it is my reality. Putting things off for a better time and place is foolish in hindsight, for a great many examples I can give but won't here.


Last spouse dies broke!

That is far from what I posted.
 
Glad that you haven't had to endure many tragedies and I hope that continues indefinitely.

Not sure where this is coming from, but whatever. I find that one needs to plan for the future, it's more likely to come than not these days. And if it doesn't, it really doesn't matter, then. Remember that balance thing.
 
So, do you run your router 24/7 ? (discounting the times of doing a firmware upgrade or problem diagnosis, of course)

If you never turn it off, is it because the router is located in a 'hard-to-access' spot of your home and so turning it on/off regularly just takes too much effort?

Or, is it because you have an actual need to run the router all the time?

Let's get the conversation back on track - not that I'm not guilty of sometimes going off the rails ;)

Leaving the Modem/Router/AP up 24/7 - well it's a choice - some do, some don't - the power hit isn't that much compared to let's say a desktop PC, but it's there, but fairly insignificant in the longer term.

In my experience, most gear fails on power up - esp as it ages, so the older the gears, perhaps higher the risk that it'll pass on to the world of dead electronics.

I keep the following gear up 24/7

1) Cable Modem
2) Router/AP (Primary)
3) Secondary AP
4) ethernet switches (two 8 port dumb switches)
5) NAS

If I'm on travel over 1 week, I'll shutdown the secondary AP, and perhaps WiFi, but many times, it's work related and folks are still at the house, but if the house is empty, the WiFi goes down - the NAS runs a VM that is my SSH/L2TP/PPTP host, so that never goes down...

All this gear that stays up 24/7 consumes at most, about 200W, which is akin to two lightbulbs - they're not the major power draw in my house, far from it...
 
In addition to being more green to conserve energy and to save some money, I turn off my router (and all other devices with a power button, if they are not needed, of course) also for the purpose of maximizing its life and reliability.

Granted that Asus (and other manufacturers) might have designed the router to run 24/7, I wish to take things beyond. To simplify things, let's say its design life is X number of years. That is, if the router is kept on 24/7, it will last X years before breaking down.

However, if I turn off the router during the night when it is not used, I reckon my router will last Y years (Y > X). I do not have long experience of handling a router but given the fact that my RT-AC87U is 'hot' (to touch) even when it is idling, I think my theory will apply.

I have tested my theory over the years with modems and STBs and have a very high rate of success (compared with my buddy who has been using the same modems and STBs).

I suppose, when the router is kept 24/7, there is nothing to lose. I pay X dollars to buy X number of years of service. Fair and square. However, if I turn it off when it is not in use at night, I will get Y number of years of service. So, I will have a return higher than the average (ie beating its design life.)

One reason I picked RT-AC87U is that Asus' warranty is 3-year (vs the usual 1-year of other manufacturer). I hope my router will last many more years than 3 years, especially with their long term support of firmwares.
 
You know there has always been a debate whether it is better to turn off PCs or not for as long as I can remember and I have seen the PC world since the beginning.. I don't think it was ever decided. Starting a PC is hard on it. Is it better to let them idle or shutoff and restart. Take your pick. Some people say they last longer one way and other people say the other way. I have done both I can't much of a difference if you use your PC all the time. I now have a desktop with RAID 0 which is over 10 years old but I rarely turn it on any more that has lasted beyond my expectation.
 
Glad that you haven't had to endure many tragedies and I hope that continues indefinitely. A
That is far from what I po
You know there has always been a debate whether it is better to turn off PCs or not for as long as I can remember and I have seen the PC world since the beginning..
I hit the SLEEP button on my keyboard as I retire to do the same. Have done so for years - since they got sleep to work well. My SSD-based system wakes up in about 3 seconds
 
If you're concerned about electrical usage and live in a region of 4 seasons or high up than you can overclock/underclock depending on the season. Put all your gear in one room and ventilation in your house and use your hardware as a central heater. You could run folding@home, save money on your heating bills and cure cancer at the same time.
 
azazel1024 I have no idea why you would think I am from NY. If you look at my name where the posts are you will see TEXAS. No where close to NY. I am sure we have cheaper electric rates than NY. I still run $200 to $300 dollars a month of electricity in the summer months. $20 is not much.

All my equipment has been hand picked over the years base on reliability. My equipment will run a year or more without requiring any attention. As stuff dies off I will replace it. The newer stuff is more energy efficient but it's not worth testing when I already have something which works really well.

You should replace your 2 16 switches with one 24 port switch since you are running multiple pipes from your servers. Having one backplane is faster than 2 with larger than GIG client pipes. I know maybe you have 3 or 4 ports linked together to bond the switches but 1 backplane is better. I would recommend a layer 3 switch you will be amazed at what one of these cheaper layer 3 switches can do. I have worked on many big Cisco switches in the past and I know what they can do but they are real expensive. I was afraid of the smaller cheaper ones thinking it would not be very good but the smaller Cisco layer 3 switch I got works really well and fast. I wish I had protocol routing to play with but oh well.

Huh, my bad. Someone else in a discussion of networking equipment power consumption was mentioning that they were in NY and also had a big rack of stuff pulling down significant juice 24x7.

Yeah, that is in large part why I want to move to a 24 port switch from 2x16. That said, the stuff I have off the 2nd switch is my light use stuff. AppleAir port that is being used as a wired only airplay receiver for some speakers, my MoCA bridge to provide connectivity for my DVR, my network printer and a couple of spare LAN drops that are normally not in use. I'd still prefer everything to be on one switch. With my needs I really don't look at anything beyond semi-managed. I don't need the full L2 features and especially not L3.

That doesn't mean I don't want or wouldn't mind having them, but I can't justify the extra power consumption and especially can't justify the extra expense for a full L2 or a semi/full L3.

On the off vs on, I've heard the argument that a lot of older equipment fails at power on. I think that is only somewhat true. I think the issue you run in to isn't that power on is hard, or that there is "momentum". I think the issue is that with a power on, you a lot of system checks and tests that are not normally conducted during normal operation. So if you have a failing or failed component, if it isn't fatal to the operation (IE a blown cap), then the system might just chug along, but it is going to be "discovered" as soon as you try to do a POST and the system will not boot. I'd argue it is better to discover the issue during POST (or failure to POST) than it is to keep the system plodding along only to have the failure possibly cause things like data corruption or fail when you need it most, rather than discovering the problem or about to be problem earlier and replace the hardware/machine.

Just like hard drives. If a drive fails on spin-up, I'd argue that it was just about to die even if you hadn't had the disks spin down. You might have possibly just discovered the issue a little earlier (well, or later since the drive spun down and it might have been hours/days before it spun up and failed to initialize). Occasional spin down (occasional) probably prolongs the drives life well beyond what you would have had, supposing you left the drive running constantly.

A lot of electronics eventually fail because one or more capacitors end up going bad. There are of course a lot of other reasons they could fail, but capacitors of most types have a limited useful life. One of the things that can accelerate this is heat, which is generated when the device is on. Time of course also "uses them up", for a number of types (much less of an issue for some types than other). You can also have eventual failure of a solder point, insulation, electron migration in transistors, etc.

Most of these are at least accelerated by use. Some are only caused by use. Some care caused primarily from time (on or off). Turning something on generally has minimal or no additional wear on solid state electronics (not necessarily so with mechanical devices). Granted, you might get 100,000hrs on a router before it fails if you run it 24x7x365 compared to 80,000hrs if you run it 18x7x365...but you might still get an extra full year of use out of it, even if it was fewer total hours of active use.
 

Sign Up For SNBForums Daily Digest

Get an update of what's new every day delivered to your mailbox. Sign up here!
Top