Blake Hudson wrote: > From: m.roth at 5-cent.us >> Blake Hudson wrote: >>> From: m.roth at 5-cent.us >>>> Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote: >>>>> Colin Coles wrote: >>>>>> On Friday 01 July 2011 12:05, Timothy Murphy wrote: >>>>>>> Any advice or suggestions gratefully received. >>>>>> If you are thinking of the UPS route a caveat: I have several HP >>>>>> servers and most of them will not work on cheap UPS's as they do not >>>>>> produce the pure sine wave modern HP machines require but rather a >>>>>> crude stepped voltage. >>>>> perhaps naively, I'm surprised: doesn't this mean they put crappy >>>>> PSUs >>>>> in those servers? >>>>> I thought decent PSUs were expected to deal with dirty input AC? >>>> I agree. Esp. since, other than in datacenters, *most* electric power >>>> is >>>> pretty crappy. >>> I would have to disagree. They probably put high efficiency active PFC >>> power supplies in the servers to save YOU money. You could buy a >>> cheaper >>> PSU that will not be as efficient and would thus cost you more in >>> electric costs and create more heat (which would again cost you more in >>> AC bills and reduce server density). The active PFC supplies are >> Except that I expect datacenters to have conditioned power, and so they >> can cheap out with the servers, with the same expectations. And I would >> expect consumer-grade systems to not have fancy power units, but ones >> that >> won't die on power irregularities from the electric co's. >> <snip> > I think you missed the point - While manufacturer's could (and probably > sometimes do) "cheap out with the servers" power supplies, it is not in > your best interest (or their's). Oh, I haven't missed the point - you missed my point, that they will cheap out - that's in the interest of their stockholders, and their exec's stock options. Better power supplies, though they actually cost *them* a few dollars more, are much more expensive options. > > More efficient PSUs create less waste heat and draw less power which > means higher density, more performance, etc. This is more important in > the server space where the computers are on 24/7 and tightly packed into > racks. More efficient PSUs cost more upfront than inefficient ones, > which mean that Dell/HP/etc can probably make a higher profit. In the > long term, you may be saving $50-100 per server per year on reduced > electric and associated costs. If you're in a colo with power draw > restrictions, you may be saving even more. Yup. As a matter of fact, my own brand new machine here at work just arrived an hour ago (ah, the smell of fresh plastic outgassing, factory air from China :((( ), and when I spec'd it out, this was the option: Precision T3500 CMT Standard PSU, C2 Motherboard [Included in Price] Precision T3500, CMT, 85 Percent Efficient Power Supply, C2 Motherboard [add $42.82] You know that's maybe $5, with the quantities they're buying. mark