Re: NM tidbits

Hi ~

Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, David Zeuthen wrote:
Clearly NM has the brains to do this itself and perhaps it should, at
least when running battery. That's part of the point why we're making NM
the single entity that controls networking. Sure, this leaves all the
uhm people who like to configure their system to the last bit out in the
cold but as pointed out repeatedly their are not the main audience for
NM [1].

As a general rule of thumbwWe should never invent options when we can do
the right thing automatically. Vote no on the "disable networking"

Presumably, it would power down wireless when connected by wire? Are there other cases where you might want both? There are certainly cases where you would want neither, even when in range of a WAP. And of course, if I don't have wire, but I'm running on battery, I may want wireless anyway.

I'm having a bit of trouble imagining a state diagram that doesn't have at least one human-activated switch in it.

If I remember correctly we made the decision to do scans every so often to keep the access point list updated. This helps the case where you disconnect and want to be on wireless right away after that. With out the scanning it would take a while to scan for an available AP and then connect to it. There is a 'low power scanning' for when you're on battery and should conserve power in as many ways as possible for NM.

I'm not sure if g-p-m has power management modes or policies, maybe David can answer that. But if you're really looking to squeeze the most battery life out of your system then presumably you'd use a "Maximize Battery Life" policy which NetworkManager would react to and attempt to conserve as much power as it could in that case.

~ Bryan

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]