danco wrote: > So, is this a simple change that we can make for ourselves, or does it > require a modified plugin? If the latter, can you post your > modification. > It is a simple change to the plugin that you can make for yourself once it is installed. See next post for the modification. But let me clarify once again. ReallyPreventStandby still relies on polling every 60 seconds. There is an almost inevitable race condition that depends on the precise timing of asynchronous events that leads in my testing to the Mac occasionally going back to sleep after WOL before caffeinate has set the power assertion. For similar reasons, it sometimes goes back to sleep too early - ignoring the set grace period in the settings of Really PreventStandby. I asked if others wanted to try it nevertheless so we could get an idea of just how often this happens in practice.
danco wrote: > I have had no problems with WOL. Maybe my answer is not subject to the > problem you report. But more likely that issue depends on the model of > Mac that one has. I am using a 2007 iMac. Those of us who have more than > one Mac (maybe even iPad/iPhone) could try WOL independent of > Squeezeboxes. Sorry but again I seem to have failed to help you understand my point. It is not an issue with WOL in general but with WOL from a Squeezebox when ReallyPreventStandby is polling every 60 seconds. Hopefully, other applications that use WOL will do what is necessary themselves. The nature of the race condition will no doubt change depending on how many cores the processor has. I run LMS on a late 2009 Mac Mini. danco wrote: > > I do agree that the best solution is for LMS to deal with the issue in > its own code, but I don't see that we "will have to" set the assertions > within LMS itself, when ReallyPreventStandby works, rather that it would > be *much* neater. It is not just a question of neatness. It is only with LMS creating and releasing its own power assertions that we will be able to reliably avoid the race conditions explained above. danco wrote: > The one advantage of my approach is that it does provide a > double-clickable way of preventing sleep, whatever else is going on. > That is something I find useful. For instance, at the moment I m > expecting an instant message from a friend so like to have my Mac awake > with display awake, so as to make it easy to check if there is a > message. Power assertions would not be the way to go with > Messages/iChat, since most of the time one does not need to keep the > machine awake, it is just a personal preference. Another case where > power assertions wouldn't work is VisualHub, which still works fine but > is not being developed further, so we are stuck with it as it is. Of course, I too would like Caffeine or something like it to work reliably again (I have had no response from the developers). But that is a different solution to a different problem ------------------------------------------------------------------------ nonnoroger's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35581 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=95980 _______________________________________________ plugins mailing list plugins@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/plugins
