Re: [gpm] ACPI S1 - Standby
- From: Richard Hughes <hughsient gmail com>
- To: kapetr <kapetr mizera cz>
- Cc: gnome-power-manager-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: [gpm] ACPI S1 - Standby
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:17:01 +0000
On 21 February 2011 16:37, kapetr <kapetr mizera cz> wrote:
> IT DO NOT STRESS SO MUCH HW LIKE S3 DOES.
> To shut down computer (and this is (except of memory) what S3 does)
> for e.g. 20, 40 min is simple stupid. It saves +- 20W against S1 and
> kills computer 2 years early - it is not economical, not "green".
Please don't shout. Can you please tell us why you think that S3
stresses the computer more than S1 and causes the computer to be
damaged? My wife has a Toshiba laptop that is over 5 years old and is
suspended and resumed a few times every day.
> Why do all the developers of SW/HW, authors of ACPI power states,
> ... offer and use S1 ?
Again, to repeat, S1 does not offer any benefits over S3, hence why
it's not supported by pm-utils, upower or gnome-power-manager.
You probably need to look at how modern chips are designed and used,
in particular what a 'C' state is, and how 'P' states are used. You'll
find that anything newer than a Pentium 2 actually does very effective
runtime power management without actually stopping the CPU. For
instance, my dual core hyperthreaded 2.40Ghz laptop spends 98% of it's
time actually running at 1.2Ghz, and about 80% of it's time in C3
sleep state. If my system load is light, backlight panel is turned
off, and wifi and bluetooth scanning is disabled, then I can get
within a few percent of S3.
] [Thread Prev