The drives will spin down after inactivity.
An on/off switch doesn’t make much sense, because you still need to get up and physically turn the device on/off; which can already be done.
I mispoke, I meant that the enclosures would actually shut off and go into standby, but because the Vero is supplying enough power to keep the unit alive, the enclosures never shut down.
Being able to turn it on with the remote or an on/off switch would preferable to constantly unplugging and plugging the cable back in to avoid wear and tear.
Not a high priority, just a wish list item 
Thanks!
I am missing the feature to turn the box on via remote as well.
For me, these reasons apply:
- I always want to have full control of my devices
- Each power consumption, regardless how small it is, has to be multiplied by its usages in sum (all over the world, throughout your whole live, and so on); saving energy consumption is a crucial step in saving our planet
- Devices are better protected against environmental issues (overvoltage, power outage - planned/unplanned)
Of course one may argue about each of these reasons. But that is not the point. It is about respect of other people’s reasons.
In my use case I use the box rarely only. I understand that this is a completely different point of view to others, that use this device regularly. But I always want to create my live how I want to create my live - and not how objects would better fit in! 
The only way you would do this is with a physical switch or by disconnecting the device from the wall outlet.
No.
You are referring to 33% percent only of what you quoted from me. And I know what you mean. But - as I told - I don’t want to argue about.
If your TV is ‘off’ in such a way that you can turn it back on from a remote control; then it is not really off. And it is still vulnerable to things like a surge.
You have full control of the device… If you want to turn it off, you can turn it off.
If you want to wake it from the remote, select ‘Power → Suspend’ and not ‘Power → Shut Down’. Are you aware that it is possible to put the device to sleep and wake it from the remote? I realise now you may have missed this.
We’re aware of this, which is why we added a low power mode.
But for it to be possible to wake your device again, there needs to be a small amount of power consumed by it. This is the same for other consumer electronics, like a television.
1 Like
Correct. But on my TV (I would prefer to have a better option as well and) no Linux is booting up. Tell me if I am wrong, but I assumed that the vero box should be shut down cleanly, until power is disconnected.
These are the other 66%: I want to be able to cut off power, without having to remember if there is a vulnerable device, I have to take care prior. Not because I need this every day. But because it will happen - and I will forget the little box then.
I saw this in this thread when flying over the nearly 4 years of conversations 
, but I am not sure about if this would help the above mentioned concern.
I will try this out and I will measure the consumption. It just feels different (and more expensive (in terms of power consumption)) than a really powered off device on which only one module listens to wakeup signals.
Additionally I am concerned about the functionality after a wakeup from suspension, as I made plenty of really bad experiences with this in the past. I have to mantain a secure connection to the target network via Internet for this box - will this be resumed properly after wakeup?
Thank you so far for taking your time - don’t get this wrong: this is a topic that is always bugging me on nowadays electronic devices and I don’t like this trend. Wherever possible I install power switches to compensate this deficite … but here for this use case this is more complicated.
All in all the vero box is amazing! I love to have a real and mighty Debian inside such an attraktive and small box. This is so sexy that I want to buy more and more of it … but there are no more use cases 
Yes. We keep the network active.
We can support a deeper sleep - the hardware can sit in a very low power state. The problem is waking up from USB.
We can likely have a more thorough standby mode if the user was waking the device via CEC, IR or WoL
Sam
WOL is not a bad idea, there are one-button apps for android for this purpose.
The Vero 4k+ idles at about 3 watts.
3w * 8760hrs in a year = 26280/1000 = 26.28 kWh used in a year.
Average electricity price per kWh in the US last year = 13.19 cents
26.28 * .1319 = $3.47 cost to idle for an entire year.
This doesn’t seem like a hill to fight over.
1 Like
Because of this I wouldn’t want to argue about these topics. 
Of course this is an impact. Not because of the money. But because of the environmental impact. Not because of this one device. But because of billions of devices like this - its getting more and more day by day.
And there are other side-effects. Above, we discussed about low power mode and the persistent ethernet connection - this also isn’t something that is appreciated, as (in my use case) there would be a permanent connection between the two places.
One may argue about this as well. One may argue about anything. Because of this, I wouldn’t wanted to argue about it. I just want my devices to be completely powered off when I am wanting them to be and I accept standby modes to support my own lazyness - but not to support an always-on trend!
I don’t expect you to understand this. I just am asking for respect for my reasons.
I would prefer an honest answer to this whole topic, that will shut it down forever:
Powering on the device is not possible with the current design and it would be much of an effort to change this. The manufacturer is not willing to invest this effort, because of the little advantage.
I am a software developer myself, and I always affront people when making statements like this. But as they are reasonable, most of the people understand them and - at least partially - agree at the end. My honest proposal for a solution always is that everyone is free to pay me for the full implementation of the request.
But I don’t like the 101 excuses about that this feature doesn’t makes sense! This is always wrong.
The way I see it is that the only way to get what you want is to put a physical switch on the back or side of the device. An on/off switch.
But from a UK perspective at the very least, this is not different to the socket itself which has a switch. And for others around the world – they could just unplug the device. It may be more convenient for users where physical access to the socket is challenging.
It also sounds like safely shutting down is important to you. The switch on the box wouldn’t resolve this issue. Truthfully – for a fully safe shutdown, we’d need the filesystem to be in read-only state, which would limit the expansive functionality of the system and definitely not be suitable for Debian. We could use something like OverlayFS to mitigate corruption issues, but handling upgrades would be tricky. Even then, this would only ensure a bootable system; but not protect user data from actual data loss.
It’s something that we think about – but your request doesn’t have a clear solution in my mind.
Perhaps a power button on the remote (which sends an IR signal) would work; but I’m not sure where it would be placed without looking weird.
Sam
I think I will go that route.
Not in an exagerated way. I am only concerned to let the power source of the device being cut off, while the box is on.
This is a great idea! I like it especially, because of no additional remote would be in the game.
Just to blow up the whole concept: maybe it would make sense to include some more buttons that can be programmed to control the TV?
With this strategy, a makeshift* would turn into a great feature!
*got this word from dictionary, hopefully it fits…