Intel Receives Network-Power-On Patent

Status
Not open for further replies.

velocityg4

Illustrious
This would be great. Power consumption is the reason I have yet to build a NAS for my home.

Even an ARM CPU uses too much energy running 24/7 to justify setting one up just for an occasional convenience of access to all my files on all devices at all times.
 

nhat11

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2009
136
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]velocityg4[/nom]This would be great. Power consumption is the reason I have yet to build a NAS for my home.Even an ARM CPU uses too much energy running 24/7 to justify setting one up just for an occasional convenience of access to all my files on all devices at all times.[/citation]

eh how much power does your device use? My desktop can be on 24/7 and its only a few dollars a month ($2-5)
 

jhansonxi

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
1,262
0
19,280
0
Seems like a minor improvement over remote power distribution/control devices which have available for datacenters for 20 years. There may be some innovation in the specific way it handles network messages but this still seems like another frivolous patent.
 

drwho1

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2010
1,272
0
19,310
15
"Intel has been just granted a patent which enables electronic devices to be switched on via an intermediate computing device."

really?
now?
I have been using remote controls for nearly 3 decades!
 

nordlead

Distinguished
Aug 3, 2011
692
0
19,060
41
[citation][nom]velocityg4[/nom]This would be great. Power consumption is the reason I have yet to build a NAS for my home.Even an ARM CPU uses too much energy running 24/7 to justify setting one up just for an occasional convenience of access to all my files on all devices at all times.[/citation]
Don't run it 24/7. My NAS consumes 30W at idle with an Atom processor, 2 HDDs, and a 8GB CF card (OS drive) and a horribly inefficient PSU. It costs $42/year to run 24/7 at $0.156/kWh (my average rate). I used to have it set to shutdown at midnight and wake up at 8AM (with WoL if I needed it outside those hours). That would cut the costs by 1/3 down to $28/year.

Honestly, I was burning more energy with the Christmas lights in my house (11x100W strands) in a single hour than what the server would use in a day.
 

dealcorn

Distinguished
Jun 12, 2008
73
0
18,630
0
I like this technology if it is affordable, but do not overestimate it's dual benefits. As a replacement for WoL you may save up to the 0.5 watt or so that WoL requires, As power supplies are typically inefficient at the this output, I would read that as more like a watt or two at the plug. Second, WoL requires a hard wired connection and this does not: wireless WoL works with this approach.
 

thrasher32

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2007
375
0
18,790
1
Hmm, sounds like a nice feature. How come Wake-On-LAN couldn't have been updated to include this functionality, I mean it seems like a no-brainer.

Water under the bridge now I suppose, since Intel now holds the patent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY