The age-old shut down vs hibernate debate

[Pleonasm]

The argument against shutting down a computer or smartphone would be that while the components are having temporary rest, it excerts more stress to warm up cold components, rather than keeping them at the same level. However, this happens whenever an inactivate /computer/phone starts getting used anyway.My question is thus as follows: is there less stress on a system going from luke to warm, as opposed to cold to luke warm?

No matter how you slice or dice it, the components are, however minimally, in progress during hibernation. Surely from a long term perspective, shutting them off would prolong their lifespan? They have a certain amount of hours on them, and those are pushed further into the future with 8 hours complete shut off everyday.?

 

[rcgldr]

In some cases (computers), the only difference between hibernate and shutdown is that hibernate saves the machine state (including ram image) in a file before shutting down and on restart, restores the machine state from that file, otherwise it's the same as a shutdown. A "standby" or "standby with quickstart" or "sleep" feature does a partial shutdown.

 

[Pleonasm]

In some cases (computers), the only difference between hibernate and shutdown is that hibernate saves the machine state (including ram image) in a file before shutting down and on restart, restores the machine state from that file, otherwise it's the same as a shutdown. A "standby" or "standby with quickstart" feature does a partial shutdown.

It's not the same as a shutdown. A computer in hibernation still consume battery in a way which a shut down computer does not.

 

[anorlunda]

Since you posted in the materials forum, I expect it is not the computer science you are asking about.This us not my field, but I expect that the most rapid temperature changes resulting in the highest temperature gradients is what effects lifetime. I further expect that to happen when warming up.

 

[rcgldr]

It's not the same as a shutdown. A computer in hibernation still consume battery in a way which a shut down computer does not.

My desktop saves state in a file, sets a hibernated flag in a boot information file, and does a full shutdown. On powerup, the flag in the boot file causes the boot process to restore the saved stated from the file, otherwise it's the same as a normal powerup. Wiki article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibernation_(computing)

There is a battery in the computer for at least the clock, and optionally to allow powerup from an external source, such as wake on lan. Wiki article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake-on-LAN

As mentioned in my prior post, a "standby" or "sleep" feature will do a partial shutdown.

 

[Pleonasm]

My desktop saves state in a file, sets a hibernated flag in a boot information file, and does a full shutdown. On powerup, the flag in the boot file causes the boot process to restore the saved stated from the file, otherwise it's the same as a normal powerup. Wiki article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibernation_(computing)

There is a battery in the computer for at least the clock, and optionally to allow powerup from an external source, such as wake on lan. Wiki article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake-on-LAN

As mentioned in my prior post, a "standby" or "sleep" feature will do a partial shutdown.

How about the discrepency between switching a phone off and on, as opposed to simply turning the screen off/ on? Will the stress from starting the phone from a cold state even out the time won by having it shut off at night?

 

[rcgldr]

How about the discrepancy between switching a phone off and on, as opposed to simply turning the screen off/ on? Will the stress from starting the phone from a cold state even out the time won by having it shut off at night?

Smartphones run relatively cool when in an idle mode, turning off the screen, slowing down the clock rate for the cpu, ... , reducing the battery discharge rate, which translates into less heat produced, and cooler circuits. My impression is that most of the components are relatively cool unless doing some high performance activity, screen on, cpu running at faster rate, perhaps wifi running at max rate.

Similarly, but not as extreme, desktops will run at lower than maximum cpu and gpu clock rates when there isn't much load, reducing power consumption, and fan speed, since less heat is being generated.

 

[Pleonasm]

Smartphones run relatively cool when in an idle mode, turning off the screen, slowing down the clock rate for the cpu, ... , reducing the battery discharge rate, which translates into less heat produced, and cooler circuits. My impression is that most of the components are relatively cool unless doing some high performance activity, screen on, cpu running at faster rate, perhaps wifi running at max rate.

Similarly, but not as extreme, desktops will run at lower than maximum cpu and gpu clock rates when there isn't much load, reducing power consumption, and fan speed, since less heat is being generated.

but the circuits are still active. Any activation is surely faster deterioration than none at all.

 

[russ_watters]

The argument against shutting down a computer or smartphone would be that while the components are having temporary rest, it excerts more stress to warm up cold components, rather than keeping them at the same level. However, this happens whenever an inactivate /computer/phone starts getting used anyway.

My question is thus as follows: is there less stress on a system going from luke to warm, as opposed to cold to luke warm?

No matter how you slice or dice it, the components are, however minimally, in progress during hibernation. Surely from a long term perspective, shutting them off would prolong their lifespan? They have a certain amount of hours on them, and those are pushed further into the future with 8 hours complete shut off everyday.?

While I have seen people ask about this "debate" over the years, I've never actually seen the debate itself, and I'm not sure I believe it actually exists. Can you point to a reference where this "debate" is being argued, perhaps in scientific research?

And short even of the debate, I have never seen reference to computers having a lifespan based on degradation of their electrical components. Can you reference a reliable source indicating such an issue exists?

As far as I know, solid state devices such as computers and even more so cell phones do not "age" in an appreciable way, and so the "debate" is moot: it does not affect the lifespan noticeably, whether you shut down your computer/phone or let it go to sleep.

It's not the same as a shutdown. A computer in hibernation still consume battery in a way which a shut down computer does not.

No, that is not correct. You are confusing hibernation mode with sleep mode.

 

[rcgldr]

but the circuits are still active. Any activation is surely faster deterioration than none at all.

True, but try comparing time duration between standby and active mode on a modern smart phone, depending on power saving options, standby drain can be 10% or less than active drain on a battery.

 

[Pleonasm]

While I have seen people ask about this "debate" over the years, I've never actually seen the debate itself, and I'm not sure I believe it actually exists. Can you point to a reference where this "debate" is being argued, perhaps in scientific research?

And short even of the debate, I have never seen reference to computers having a lifespan based on degradation of their electrical components. Can you reference a reliable source indicating such an issue exists?

As far as I know, solid state devices such as computers and even more so cell phones do not "age" in an appreciable way, and so the "debate" is moot: it does not affect the lifespan noticeably, whether you shut down your computer/phone or let it go to sleep.

No, that is not correct. You are confusing hibernation mode with sleep mode.

Should I Turn My Computer Off at Night?

The issue isn’t as simple as you might think; there’s no single answer to this perennial question.

https://askleo.com/should-i-turn-my-computer-off-at-night/

Footnotes & references
1: Surprisingly, not quite true on some machines. Even when you turn the power completely off, there are often components that remain powered to some degree. Only pulling the power plug prevents this tiny trickle of electricity from being used if it is on your specific machine.

 

[elusiveshame]

Should I Turn My Computer Off at Night?

The issue isn’t as simple as you might think; there’s no single answer to this perennial question.

https://askleo.com/should-i-turn-my-computer-off-at-night/

Footnotes & references
1: Surprisingly, not quite true on some machines. Even when you turn the power completely off, there are often components that remain powered to some degree. Only pulling the power plug prevents this tiny trickle of electricity from being used if it is on your specific machine.

This isn't really an argument/debate - it's just some persons opinion posted on their blog. It's as relevant as someone's opinion in a forum post. The only concern you should potentially have is lowering your electric bill. You may have some components fail over time (hard drive, RAM, fans), but I've seen failures happen at the same rate on PC's that have been powered down as well as left on 24/7. I have a computer at home that hasn't been turned off in 8 years, except for when I lost power, and nothing has failed on it.

The footnote seems a bit silly, too. It shouldn't be a surprise that something plugged in is using a tiny trickle of electricity - just about every device does (coffee maker, VCR, TV, etc). That's how status LED's work to let you know if a device is powered on or not.

 

[Pleonasm]

I have a computer at home that hasn't been turned off in 8 years, except for when I lost power, and nothing has failed on it.

How does that refute the other side though? It's an all else equal argument.

 

[CWatters]

I've had several PC last 8+ years and others fail within 2 years. I've yet to detect any particular usage pattern responsible.

The only thing I would say is that electrolytic capacitors can have a short life if they are run hot. So in a hot climate or similar I would probably buy a better quality and over spec PSU and fit more fans to the case than I would otherwise. Make sure things like the graphics card is well cooled.

 

[mfb]

There are different possible failure modes, and it is not clear which one will make your device fail first.

• Things with a battery will see a degraded battery capacity over time, mainly coming from the number of charge cycles. Lowering power consumption will make the battery last longer.
• Thermal cycles can break things, although I'm not sure if that is ever relevant in consumer electronics. Keeping the device running and active will limit the number of thermal cycles.
• The risk to overheat is only present if the device is switched on, but if the device tends to overheat it will probably do that soon anyway.
• Single event effects from radiation can only occur when things are switched on. Keeping the device off reduces their probability. Overall you shouldn't have a problem from them in usual applications.
• Accumulation of radiation damage depends on the powering state, but different components will behave differently. This is not an issue in consumer electronics in usual places, however.

All these things become more important for specialized electronics, with intense ionizing radiation, with high voltage components and so on. Particle detectors prefer "on" or "off" depending on their individual conditions, sometimes even a mixture (e.g. HV off, LV on).

 

[elusiveshame]

How does that refute the other side though? It's an all else equal argument.

That was kind of my point :P

 

[berkeman]

Since you posted in the materials forum, I expect it is not the computer science you are asking about.

After a Mentor discussion, we'll move this thread to the General Physics forum for now. It does involve more than just materials or even EE.

 

[anorlunda]

This source cites the following three main causes of PC failure. I think it is notable that none of the three are failures in the semiconductors, and that thermal cycling is significant in all three.

1. Component Package Failures ... Mechanical failure of the package can be caused by a number of factors including thermal stress, chemical cleaners, and ultraviolet light.
2. Solder Joint and Contact Failures ... Thermal cycles are also a prime cause of solder joint failure, especially if the thermal expansion rates of the materials (component pin, solder, PCB trace coating, and PCB trace) are different.
   
3. PCB Failures ... The solder flux used in attaching all of the components to a PCB may remain on the surface of a PCB which will eat away and corrode any metal it comes in contact with. Solder flux is not the only corrosive material that often finds its way on to PCBs as some components may leak fluids that can become corrosive over time and several cleaning agents can have the same effect or leave a conductive residue which causes shorts on the board. Thermal cycling is another cause of PCB failures which can lead to delamination of the PCB and play a role in letting metal fibers grow in between the layers of a PCB.

 

[Pleonasm]

This source cites the following three main causes of PC failure. I think it is notable that none of the three are failures in the semiconductors, and that thermal cycling is significant in all three.

1. Component Package Failures ... Mechanical failure of the package can be caused by a number of factors including thermal stress, chemical cleaners, and ultraviolet light.
2. Solder Joint and Contact Failures ... Thermal cycles are also a prime cause of solder joint failure, especially if the thermal expansion rates of the materials (component pin, solder, PCB trace coating, and PCB trace) are different.
   
3. PCB Failures ... The solder flux used in attaching all of the components to a PCB may remain on the surface of a PCB which will eat away and corrode any metal it comes in contact with. Solder flux is not the only corrosive material that often finds its way on to PCBs as some components may leak fluids that can become corrosive over time and several cleaning agents can have the same effect or leave a conductive residue which causes shorts on the board. Thermal cycling is another cause of PCB failures which can lead to delamination of the PCB and play a role in letting metal fibers grow in between the layers of a PCB.

How about moderate, external impacts? Could this not contribute to weakened connections and overheating? When I gave a smartphone display a "black eye" it suddenly started suffering from constant overheating, from originally withstandning work load of any kind. It got at worst luke warm.. Suddenly it overheated from any prolonged usage and disabled features.

 

[Pleonasm]

I would very much like to know how impacts could affect heat dissipation? The construct is what it is no matter if a pixel is bad on the upper left side, say. This phones heat regulation went south once there was clear signs of display damage.

 

[elusiveshame]

How about moderate, external impacts? Could this not contribute to weakened connections and overheating? When I gave a smartphone display a "black eye" it suddenly started suffering from constant overheating, from originally withstandning work load of any kind. It got at worst luke warm.. Suddenly it overheated from any prolonged usage and disabled features.

You could definitely jostle something out of place that could cause ill-desired effects. If you loosen any heat shielding/heat sink/cause thermal paste to chip away, then overheating could definitely be a thing.

I also agree with what @mfb said about the capacitors. There's a certain age range from the 90's where caps are known to have gone bad within a few years (much shorter than they should have), so if you cheap out on your parts, the components that make up those parts could definitely degrade much faster, causing a whole array of issues.

 

[Klystron]

Measurements provided by data center hosts to resident clients may be relevant to collections of computers and related equipment.

• electrical power consumption measurements.
• temperature variations after accounting for external temperature changes, HVAC usage, client visits, etc.
• network statistics.
  
• error and alarm statistics.

The large sample sizes and collections of equipment under similar if not identical conditions provide a statistically significant measure.

The OP includes mobile units. Cell phones can be dropped or otherwise physically damaged while electronics in data centers are fixed to support structures. So, gather statistics on many cell phones and also look at data center installations as units with computers as components..

Examples: during the October 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake Bay Area data centers dropped shook and twisted. Ames research center located along the south bay kilometers north of the epicenter experienced "S" and "P" seismic waves lasting "many minutes". Some systems were then exposed to thermal shock as super-heated gases vented from the nearby blow-down wind tunnel vessels. While evacuating and searching the buildings, computing equipment looked devastated, covered in thick dust. Once personnel were allowed to return and with power restored most equipment came back up after cleaning and reinserting loose boards.

For more data I suggest comparing Ames replacement equipment cost figures for ~5 years before and after the 'quake with sister site at Langely. Many, if not most, computers were upgraded/replaced 1989-1993. Comparison to Langely and other data centers not affected by earthquakes could provide failure rates for 'components' subject to this event.

 

[russ_watters]

Should I Turn My Computer Off at Night?

The issue isn’t as simple as you might think; there’s no single answer to this perennial question.

https://askleo.com/should-i-turn-my-computer-off-at-night/

That is neither a reference to the debate - only a guy who someone told he heard about it from a friend - nor a reference documenting the problem actually exists. At this point, I'm inclined to believe this is just a myth, like the old myths we used to hear about fluorescent light bulbs.

How does that refute the other side though? It's an all else equal argument.

There's nothing here to refute: you haven't given a source either documenting or arguing that the issue exists. Only that people have *heard* a "debate" exists.

I do like the blogger's answer though: since there is no evidence this problem is real, you should ignore it and operate your PC based on how it best works for you with respect to ease of use and electrical usage.

 

[Pleonasm]

At this point, I'm inclined to believe this is just a myth, .

So what is your contention? What is the prevailing wisdom on this topic?

 

[Klystron]

Oh, I was trying to supply hard data comparing lots of cell phones and computers. [BTW I found a different method than data center aggregates.]

Professional opinion: keep electronic equipment vital to communications such as phones powered up with conservation parameters set to maximize duty cycle. Keep personal computers not vital to emergencies powered on or off according to your preferences. I leave my computers powered up but let the OS set hibernation and related states such as screen saver mode based on my parameters. Your choice.

[Agree that "this debate" insofar at it exists is folklore. Use actual data from groups of equipment.]

 

[russ_watters]

So what is your contention? What is the prevailing wisdom on this topic?

The blogger and I just told you: The prevailing wisdom is that the the issue you are asking about does not exist, so you should ignore the "debate".

 

[anorlunda]

There is a separate but closely related issue for laptop computers that should be mentioned.

When your laptop is shut down, the battery charging circuit is still active. Spontaneous fire in lithium ion batteries is a risk and heightened while charging. The risk is not just computer failure, but also a structure fire. For that reason, the recommendation for laptops is to remove the battery if you leave it plugged in all the time. The laptop will still function normally when plugged in without the battery (but it will stop on a momentary power failure).

Some office laptops are used as desktops, always plugged in and never intended to use as a portable device. Especially in those cases, the battery should be removed.

I confess that I don't follow that advice myself, but I do acknowledge the risk-convenience trade-off.

 

[russ_watters]

There is a separate but closely related issue for laptop computers that should be mentioned...

Another is that because computers tend to draw a little even when shutdown, taking the battery out of a laptop you don't intend to use for a while will make it live longer.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's not the same as a shutdown. A computer in hibernation still consume battery in a way which a shut down computer does not.

That is simply not the case. A computer in hibernation reads a file containing the state before hibernation and resets that state. That's the only difference,

 

[anorlunda]

<<Moderator: This thread was originally posted in Materials and Chem E. I think it may be more appropriate here.>>