<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Roger Horner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:roger1818@yahoo.com">roger1818@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:Courier New, courier, monaco, monospace, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div><span>Don't forget the higher communication speed also means higher power consumption, even when idle. While a couple watts may not seem like much, if you keep the equipment on 24/7, that works out to a couple bucks of electricity per year </span><span>per computer (plus extra for the switch)</span><span>. If you are frequently doing file transfers, it might be worth the expense, but it isn't necessary if all you are doing is streaming video (100baseT is more than enough for multiple simultaneous streams). Just one more thing to keep in mind.<br>
</span></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br>This is not entirely true. There is absolutely no direct correlation between bandwidth and power consumption. While it is true that a Gigbit switch produced at the same time as an equivalent 100Mbps switch may consume 1-2W more power per port, our "green" society has encouraged vendors to implement power saving technologies that can make replacing an old 100Mbps switch with a Gigabit switch a power saving upgrade.<br>
<br>Even if you were upgrading to a more power hungry switch, simply having a GB network can save you power simply because the DURATION of the transfer is reduced allowing the machine to resume a low power state (assuming it left it to perform the transfer) much sooner. Of course this depends upon your workload/environment; this is especially true with the new Green switches.<br>
<br>Check out:<br><a href="http://www.dlinkgreen.com/energyefficiency.asp">http://www.dlinkgreen.com/energyefficiency.asp</a><br><br><br>