lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jul]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: (reiserfs) Re: sync: why disk cannot spin down
    On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Marc Lehmann wrote:

    > On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 04:53:00PM +0200, Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> wrote:
    > > My point is: putting a drive to sleep rather than to standby will not
    > > help much, it will only delay the spin-up and possibly leave you with a
    > > slower drive.
    >
    > Cool logic. How do you define "much"? Drive electronics can still use
    > a lot of power, and most users (xuan and me excluded ;) want this for
    > power-save.

    How much you get, depends on how much the actual drive saves. Still, you
    lose performance, you possibly lose the settings, that's on the negative
    side. I'm aware of these implications, a good friend of mine has written
    his diploma thesis in electrical engineering on exactly this topic,
    namely "Algorithmen für den leistungsarmen Betrieb mobiler Festplatten"
    (German-language, translates to 'algorithms for the low-power operation of
    mobile hard disk drives'). Contact me in private mail if you need
    more information.

    He collected some information from manufacturers that I'm working up
    here: (quoting from

    manuf.+model IBM DARA Hitachi Fujitsu Seagate Ma- Maxtor
    cont'd 225000 DK22AA 2064AT rathon 2250 251010A

    power (W)
    active 2.6 2.22 2.15 2.50 1.83
    idle 2.0/1.3/0.85 1.7/0.8 0.95 1.20 0.90
    standby 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.30 0.20
    sleep 0.1 0.125 0.13 0.10 0.10

    So, effectively, you gain about 100..200 mW by putting a drive from
    standby to sleep, while you gain roughly 1000 mW from idle to standby
    after gaining 0.5 .. 1.5 W from active to idle. (depends on the usage
    pattern). OTOH, if you're talking about power, the more interesting
    thing is the energy (integral t0...t1 P(t) dt), and waking up
    electronics and spinning up the drive costs additional energy, even if
    it's only for the delay until the request is satisfied. If waking up
    from sleep costs additional seconds, that's going to cost battery life,
    to put it popularly.

    > In practise, of course, there is a clear trade-off between ugly error (!)
    > messages from the kernel drawing for your attention and not putting the
    > drive to sleep.

    The error message is natural, a drive put to sleep is put there
    permanently, since the drive is supposed to power down its interface
    electronics as well.

    > In general, the kernel support is lacking much with respect to
    > power-savings (just spin down your scsi-drive to get some nice hang (and
    > yes, I know the scsi-idle patch)).

    Since SCSI drives are only manually powered down, the Kernel is fine in
    this respect, although it leaves room for feature requests, admittedly
    :-)

    --
    Matthias Andree

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.022 / U:212.176 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site