Re: Headphone volume adjustment
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote: Yes, we try not to. I do not recall the technical arguments in full, Daniel would, but they included very limited processing power, very limited memory, it didn't work when we first tried it, and a suite of applications that use the ALSA controls directly that we would have to port. Hrm, I suspect you'll find that either the processing power stuff is all fixed or it's due to bugs in the DMA in the driver which will probably get you sooner or later - worth checking out just in case, Pulse gets a lot of stick for things that are actually driver issues, it ends up being a really good test of the DMA implementation (some of the issues I saw mentioned in the changelogs sound like they might've been an issue for Pulse). Even if you don't use it it might help validate the driver layer. The last time we tried PulseAudio, it segfaulted on startup, and we didn't get into the diagnosis. It was years ago though, and we haven't tried since. We do want to give it another go but it has never taken a high enough priority for us to actually do it. We also agree that UCM looks like it will solve some of our problems, and we'd like to fix/use the dynamic routing in the upstream codec driver. Just need to find time to work on it. 3 of us have already spent a considerable amount of time on the routing issue with little progress :/ Manually validating the links between the components against the spec seems to be a very time consuming process and prone to human error. Maybe you have some suggestions or tools to help on that front. The issue is that upon playback, nothing is reproduced, and the dapm files in sysfs show that almost everything on the codec is powered down. Thanks Daniel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Headphone volume adjustment
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 08:45:42AM -0600, Daniel Drake wrote: The last time we tried PulseAudio, it segfaulted on startup, and we didn't get into the diagnosis. It was years ago though, and we haven't tried since. We do want to give it another go but it has never taken a high enough priority for us to actually do it. It'd probably be helpful for the people running Fedora at least. We also agree that UCM looks like it will solve some of our problems, and we'd like to fix/use the dynamic routing in the upstream codec driver. Just need to find time to work on it. Do you know if a mainline kernel will actually run sensibly on your system? I have a XO-1.75 (this was part of the reason I was looking) but I'm mostly interested in advancing the state of the art. 3 of us have already spent a considerable amount of time on the routing issue with little progress :/ Manually validating the links between the components against the spec seems to be a very time consuming process and prone to human error. Maybe you have some suggestions or tools to help on that front. The issue is that upon playback, nothing is reproduced, and the dapm files in sysfs show that almost everything on the codec is powered down. Hrm, no issues reported upstream with this :( There's a couple of scripts written by Dimitris Papastamos in the git repository at git://opensource.wolfsonmicro.com/asoc-tools.git that help with visualisation of the graph. Essentially always it's a case of starting at one of the ends of the audio path you're trying to create and looking for the point at which a widget is missing an input or output (depending on which direction you're working through) - the tools liked above can help do that visually, or you can do it by looking at the widget files in debugfs since all the inputs and outputs for each widget are listed. As you say the fact that there's a problem with the path not being connected tends to be fairly obvious since nothing gets powered up so it should be clear when to look at the graph. Otherwise it's mostly just a question of looking for mutes and low gains in the path, but that only applies once things are powered up. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Headphone volume adjustment
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Mark Brown broo...@sirena.org.uk wrote: Do you know if a mainline kernel will actually run sensibly on your system? I have a XO-1.75 (this was part of the reason I was looking) but I'm mostly interested in advancing the state of the art. I am working on that at the moment, there are some arch patches needed (DT bindings and so on) and the Marvell maintainers are not being overly responsive. It is progressing though, I will try to remember to send you an email when it can be booted easily on mainline. 3 of us have already spent a considerable amount of time on the routing issue with little progress :/ Manually validating the links between the components against the spec seems to be a very time consuming process and prone to human error. Maybe you have some suggestions or tools to help on that front. The issue is that upon playback, nothing is reproduced, and the dapm files in sysfs show that almost everything on the codec is powered down. Hrm, no issues reported upstream with this :( Thanks for the pointers - those scripts look like they will help find the problems. Daniel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Headphone volume adjustment
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:39:37PM -0600, Daniel Drake wrote: On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Mark Brown broo...@sirena.org.uk wrote: Do you know if a mainline kernel will actually run sensibly on your system? I have a XO-1.75 (this was part of the reason I was looking) but I'm mostly interested in advancing the state of the art. I am working on that at the moment, there are some arch patches needed (DT bindings and so on) and the Marvell maintainers are not being overly responsive. It is progressing though, I will try to remember to send you an email when it can be booted easily on mainline. Ah, cool - I'll keep an eye out. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
[Fwd: PEAP and keyfile]
Hi All, In 13.1.0 [1] were used while 13.2.0 uses [2]. Any ideas on how to solve this one? Next week I'll try replacing the non-working connection file with the one that does work when I have access to that network again. Jerry Forwarded Message From: Jerry Vonau jvo...@shaw.ca To: networkmanager-l...@gnome.org Subject: PEAP and keyfile Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 19:31:20 -0500 Hi All: I've ran into a situation that I'm not sure in how to handle with these packages[1] I was able to use nm-connection-editor with only the keyfile plugin to create the system connection with ease and resulted in this configuration: [802-1x] eap=peap; identity=x phase2-auth=mschapv2 password=y [802-11-wireless-security] key-mgmt=wpa-eap After updating the rpms[2] using nm-connection-editor results in this configuration: [802-11-wireless-security] key-mgmt=wpa-eap [802-1x] eap=peap; identity=x phase2-auth=mschapv2 password-flags=1 system-ca-certs=true I'm at a bit of a loss as to what to do about this, any help or pointers would be grateful. I understand that password-flags=1 hands this over to an auth agent for the secrets, gnome keyring is running but with an empty password. I clicked ignore when prompted for the certs file. I've tried to downgrade back to [1] but with the same results. Am I running into some polkit issue here? What other dependencies might I have to downgrade to return to the same functionality? Thank, Jerry 1. NetworkManager-0.9.7.0-8.git20121004.fc18.armv7hl network-manager-applet-0.9.7.0-4.git20121016.fc18.armv7hl NetworkManager-glib-0.9.7.0-8.git20121004.fc18.armv7hl nm-connection-editor-0.9.7.0-4.git20121016.fc18.armv7hl 2. NetworkManager-0.9.8.1-3.git20130514.fc18.armv7hl network-manager-applet-0.9.8.1-3.git20130430.fc18.armv7hl NetworkManager-glib-0.9.8.1-3.git20130514.fc18.armv7hl nm-connection-editor-0.9.8.1-3.git20130430.fc18.armv7hl ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] How everyone can help with 0.100
Adding in olpc-devel. On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 03:34 +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote: This is based on the last sugar-build configuration which supported fedora 18. Note, I'm guessing a lot, you should give it a try before settling on a plan. * webkitgtk which drags in libsoup glib gobject-introspection pygobject dbus-python Kind of need to know the exact versions of the above packages, olpc is carrying patched versions[1] of a couple of those packages, so we need to be careful here. Anybody want to chime in on what patches need to be present for the XOs? * gwebsockets What are its dependencies? * libxklavier (not needed on the XO according to Jerry). See for yourself[2], olpc doesn't ship sugar-cp-keyboard. Jerry 1.http://mock.laptop.org/cgit/local.13.2.0/tree/SRPMS 2.http://download.laptop.org/xo-4/os/official/13.2.0-13/32013o4.packages.txt The first group of dependencies are probably going to be quite a pain. So you might want to patch webactivity.py to support webkit1 instead. That would leave only gwebsockets. Add sugar, sugar-toolkit-gtk3, sugar-datastore, sugar-artwork. A total of five packages, not too bad. On Saturday, 17 August 2013, Martin Abente wrote: I think that having these packages on a publicly available repo would be of great help, not only for testing but also for developing... I know that maintaining specs and a building system sounds like headache now... but what if we can split the work? Daniel, how many system packages (aprox) are we talking about? On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Jerry Vonau jvo...@shaw.ca wrote: OLPC doesn't ship with cp-keyboard installed perhaps for testing on XOs we could just patch that out at rpm generation like OLPC had done in the past. Jerry On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 02:17 +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote: By the way I think libxklavier 5.4 is not even in Fedora 19 but it's required for the keyboard control panel section to work. On Saturday, 17 August 2013, Daniel Narvaez wrote: From memory gwebsockets 0.3, libxklavier 5.4, webkitgtk 2.0.x. There are almost certainly more deps. (We really need to start tracking our dependencies more systematically but it's tricky). On Saturday, 17 August 2013, Jerry Vonau wrote: On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 10:57 +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote: It would be nice but I think it would involve a non trivial amount of work to do it properly. It's not just rebuilding the sugar rpms, there are system dependencies that would need to be built... latest libxklavier and webkitgtk comes to my mind, but there is probably more. What versions of the above packages and gwebsockets are required? Jerry On 15 August 2013 05:12, Martin Abente martin.abente.lah...@gmail.com wrote: +1 This would be great! On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Gonzalo Odiard gonz...@laptop.org wrote: +1 to have rpms to install over 13.2.0 In this way we can isolate for other changes on the distro, for every change
How everyone can help with 0.100 forwarded
Sorry to those who receive this twice. On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 22:21 -0500, Jerry Vonau wrote: Adding in olpc-devel. On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 03:34 +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote: This is based on the last sugar-build configuration which supported fedora 18. Note, I'm guessing a lot, you should give it a try before settling on a plan. * webkitgtk which drags in libsoup glib gobject-introspection pygobject dbus-python Kind of need to know the exact versions of the above packages, olpc is carrying patched versions[1] of a couple of those packages, so we need to be careful here. Anybody want to chime in on what patches need to be present for the XOs? I'm looking for help on which patches might be now included in the upstream packages and are no longer need. * gwebsockets What are its dependencies? * libxklavier (not needed on the XO according to Jerry). See for yourself[2], olpc doesn't ship sugar-cp-keyboard. Jerry 1.http://mock.laptop.org/cgit/local.13.2.0/tree/SRPMS 2.http://download.laptop.org/xo-4/os/official/13.2.0-13/32013o4.packages.txt The first group of dependencies are probably going to be quite a pain. So you might want to patch webactivity.py to support webkit1 instead. That would leave only gwebsockets. Add sugar, sugar-toolkit-gtk3, sugar-datastore, sugar-artwork. A total of five packages, not too bad. On Saturday, 17 August 2013, Martin Abente wrote: I think that having these packages on a publicly available repo would be of great help, not only for testing but also for developing... I know that maintaining specs and a building system sounds like headache now... but what if we can split the work? Daniel, how many system packages (aprox) are we talking about? On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Jerry Vonau jvo...@shaw.ca wrote: OLPC doesn't ship with cp-keyboard installed perhaps for testing on XOs we could just patch that out at rpm generation like OLPC had done in the past. Jerry On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 02:17 +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote: By the way I think libxklavier 5.4 is not even in Fedora 19 but it's required for the keyboard control panel section to work. On Saturday, 17 August 2013, Daniel Narvaez wrote: From memory gwebsockets 0.3, libxklavier 5.4, webkitgtk 2.0.x. There are almost certainly more deps. (We really need to start tracking our dependencies more systematically but it's tricky). On Saturday, 17 August 2013, Jerry Vonau wrote: On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 10:57 +0200, Daniel Narvaez wrote: It would be nice but I think it would involve a non trivial amount of work to do it properly. It's not just rebuilding the sugar rpms, there are system dependencies that would need to be built... latest libxklavier and webkitgtk comes to my mind, but there is probably more. What versions of the above packages and gwebsockets are required? Jerry On 15 August 2013 05:12, Martin Abente martin.abente.lah...@gmail.com wrote: +1 This would be great! On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Gonzalo Odiard gonz...@laptop.org wrote: +1 to have rpms to install
[Server-devel] Powering a hard drive?
We have just received confirmation that compulab won't be releasing a SATA connector with the utilite. ( http://utilite-computer.com/web/home ) Instread they will offer a mSATA connection. So far, they have not been willing to clarify if the change is due to heat, power, or marketing. As shipped the base utility will hit the all important sub $100 mark. However the cost of a SSD is significantly higher than a normal drive. Do any of the power experts have suggestions? Losing the 'all in one' form factor greatly reduces the value in my opinion -- David Farning Activity Central: http://www.activitycentral.com ___ Server-devel mailing list Server-devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel
Re: [Server-devel] Powering a hard drive?
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:18:40PM -0500, David Farning wrote: However the cost of a SSD is significantly higher than a normal drive. What's the incremental cost of solar capture and storage for powering a hard drive compared to an SSD? -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Server-devel mailing list Server-devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel
Re: [Server-devel] Powering a hard drive?
Hi, I have been trying to crunch some numbers and the results seem interesting. I don't claim the calculations to be correct, so if someone with more knowledge (than me or a quick google search) can reply, would be very useful. The average difference between power consumption of an SSD and a HDD is about 4W. [1][2] Now considering the environments we're gonna head into we're looking at typically 1-3 days of power backup for the server (lets average out at 2). That means, the battery backup needed is: 4 * 24 * 2 = 192 W-hr *That comes out to roughly $25-35 in battery costs* (again based on quick google searches for battery costs). *If you want a longer life from you're battery, you're looking at about $50-60 in battery costs.* Now if we're also giving solar backup, based on the calculator here [3] we're going to need about a 25-30W solar panel (for just those 4 extra watts). Again, google tells me that *such panels retail for about $65-80.* * * *So, on average we'll save $100-$130 on TCO (total cost of ownership), if we intend to provide an SSD as opposed to an HDD, considering the server runs 24x7 and 2 days of backup is needed.* * * On top of that, you're looking at less failures, a better operating temperature range, and more durability. * * Disclaimer: I don't claim to be an expert in this area (hence am cc'ing Richard Smith), but this is what some back of the envelope number crunching tells me. [1] http://www.storagereview.com/ssd_vs_hdd [2] http://forum.notebookreview.com/solid-state-drives-ssds-flash-storage/645232-ssd-vs-hdd-power-usage.html [3] http://www.batterystuff.com/kb/tools/solar-calculator.html, Best, Anish On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 4:55 PM, James Cameron qu...@laptop.org wrote: On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:18:40PM -0500, David Farning wrote: However the cost of a SSD is significantly higher than a normal drive. What's the incremental cost of solar capture and storage for powering a hard drive compared to an SSD? -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Server-devel mailing list Server-devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel -- Anish | an...@sugarlabs.org ___ Server-devel mailing list Server-devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel
Re: [Server-devel] Powering a hard drive?
Oops, forgot to actually cc Richard. Here's some more Google searching of SSD v/s HDD prices. Capacity HDD price SSD Price Price difference 64 GB $25 $50 $25 128 GB $33$100$67256 GB$40$200$160512 GB$55$430$375 If you can manage a server with a 128 GB drive, then SSD seems to be the way to go. At 256 GB, it's even between the two when you consider other factors like durability; perhaps HDD has a slight edge here. Anything bigger than that, it makes the most sense to buy an HDD. Best, Anish On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Anish Mangal an...@sugarlabs.org wrote: Hi, I have been trying to crunch some numbers and the results seem interesting. I don't claim the calculations to be correct, so if someone with more knowledge (than me or a quick google search) can reply, would be very useful. The average difference between power consumption of an SSD and a HDD is about 4W. [1][2] Now considering the environments we're gonna head into we're looking at typically 1-3 days of power backup for the server (lets average out at 2). That means, the battery backup needed is: 4 * 24 * 2 = 192 W-hr *That comes out to roughly $25-35 in battery costs* (again based on quick google searches for battery costs). *If you want a longer life from you're battery, you're looking at about $50-60 in battery costs.* Now if we're also giving solar backup, based on the calculator here [3] we're going to need about a 25-30W solar panel (for just those 4 extra watts). Again, google tells me that *such panels retail for about $65-80.* * * *So, on average we'll save $100-$130 on TCO (total cost of ownership), if we intend to provide an SSD as opposed to an HDD, considering the server runs 24x7 and 2 days of backup is needed.* * * On top of that, you're looking at less failures, a better operating temperature range, and more durability. * * Disclaimer: I don't claim to be an expert in this area (hence am cc'ing Richard Smith), but this is what some back of the envelope number crunching tells me. [1] http://www.storagereview.com/ssd_vs_hdd [2] http://forum.notebookreview.com/solid-state-drives-ssds-flash-storage/645232-ssd-vs-hdd-power-usage.html [3] http://www.batterystuff.com/kb/tools/solar-calculator.html, Best, Anish On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 4:55 PM, James Cameron qu...@laptop.org wrote: On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:18:40PM -0500, David Farning wrote: However the cost of a SSD is significantly higher than a normal drive. What's the incremental cost of solar capture and storage for powering a hard drive compared to an SSD? -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ ___ Server-devel mailing list Server-devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel -- Anish | an...@sugarlabs.org -- Anish | an...@sugarlabs.org ___ Server-devel mailing list Server-devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel
Re: [Server-devel] Server-devel Digest, Vol 76, Issue 21
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 From: David Farning dfarn...@activitycentral.com We have just received confirmation that compulab won't be releasing a SATA connector with the utilite. ( http://utilite-computer.com/web/home ) Instread they will offer a mSATA connection. This is a real disappointment to the Internet-in-a-Box project. I was really hoping the Utilite would be the perfect solution for our full dataset (which is too large for an SSD). - -braddock -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSDu3rAAoJEHWLR/DQzlZufbIH/RJv2wnglYnMRd+F6uMHvF5A pG048IP4rEd/5+jjERksTVRwCth5ZTL5bNJfiBA/h6hxFdS1fER1LR8SrbW7tSqi o9/r+HEW8MEuNaRb3sqb9Ud81YaWkh9WXX8+bjK/pvGSuJUcVzazXpFPuvkePFHz HYSRo3Unh1ehoqnWicXg+iNiUmqXjQIl5DEv2qZE0jcTskxnhGjTGIzuEk6kj/XU Ed06TePXwlj0II5zsLWdBqvxmDP0dZgdgDBKLnjomwSOFTKIEqQb645qftb8aVlT qmM4yAzgjWDtSeNCBhElpohUJ1zDv0Ldrzrx6P1DSOzLFW5CiKhg/A4R+JD6Upw= =VwuD -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Server-devel mailing list Server-devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel
Re: [Server-devel] Server-devel Digest, Vol 76, Issue 21
Hi, What is the disk capacity required by internet-in-a-box? The purpose of the server is to deliver the information not available from the internet. The cost of a UPS which is required for a system on the grid is $80-100. In my experience, there is need for one school server at a school supporting 30-200 XOs. Tony On 08/17/2013 03:02 AM, server-devel-requ...@lists.laptop.org wrote: The average difference between power consumption of an SSD and a HDD is about 4W. [1][2] Now considering the environments we're gonna head into we're looking at typically 1-3 days of power backup for the server (lets average out at 2). That means, the battery backup needed is: 4 * 24 * 2 = 192 W-hr *That comes out to roughly $25-35 in battery costs* (again based on quick google searches for battery costs). *If you want a longer life from you're battery, you're looking at about $50-60 in battery costs.* Now if we're also giving solar backup, based on the calculator here [3] we're going to need about a 25-30W solar panel (for just those 4 extra watts). Again, google tells me that *such panels retail for about $65-80.* * * *So, on average we'll save $100-$130 on TCO (total cost of ownership), if we intend to provide an SSD as opposed to an HDD, considering the server runs 24x7 and 2 days of backup is needed.* * * On top of that, you're looking at less failures, a better operating temperature range, and more durability. ___ Server-devel mailing list Server-devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel
Re: [Server-devel] Server-devel Digest, Vol 76, Issue 21
On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 05:49 +0200, Tony Anderson wrote: Hi, What is the disk capacity required by internet-in-a-box? 600-700 gigs The purpose of the server is to deliver the information not available from the internet. Yup, or when your offline. The cost of a UPS which is required for a system on the grid is $80-100. Think the issue is mainly about off-grid systems, those are usually 12v. What would be neat is if there was a power supply that you could replace in your standard PC that used 12v as the supply voltage. Anybody know of a manufacture that supplies one? I'd hate to see what the size of the battery pack and the recharging requirements needed of the solar/wind/insert others recharging system that would be needed to run such a beast. In my experience, there is need for one school server at a school supporting 30-200 XOs. Know of any low power devices that you might recommend for off-grid use? Jerry Tony On 08/17/2013 03:02 AM, server-devel-requ...@lists.laptop.org wrote: The average difference between power consumption of an SSD and a HDD is about 4W. [1][2] Now considering the environments we're gonna head into we're looking at typically 1-3 days of power backup for the server (lets average out at 2). That means, the battery backup needed is: 4 * 24 * 2 = 192 W-hr *That comes out to roughly $25-35 in battery costs* (again based on quick google searches for battery costs). *If you want a longer life from you're battery, you're looking at about $50-60 in battery costs.* Now if we're also giving solar backup, based on the calculator here [3] we're going to need about a 25-30W solar panel (for just those 4 extra watts). Again, google tells me that *such panels retail for about $65-80.* * * *So, on average we'll save $100-$130 on TCO (total cost of ownership), if we intend to provide an SSD as opposed to an HDD, considering the server runs 24x7 and 2 days of backup is needed.* * * On top of that, you're looking at less failures, a better operating temperature range, and more durability. ___ Server-devel mailing list Server-devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel ___ Server-devel mailing list Server-devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel
Re: [Server-devel] Server-devel Digest, Vol 76, Issue 21
Hi, My point about the UPS is that an off-grid setup doesn't need one which somewhat offsets the additional cost of supporting a hard drive. Currently the two schools in Lesotho are using MSI Nettop as school servers. In the context of charging 30-100 XOs, the additional power consumed by the school server is negligible. However, at the second school which charges the laptops using individual solar panels, the school server takes a dedicated solar panel charging a pair of car batteries. The big surprise was that the MSI does not boot on 12vdc. This required adding an inverter (designed to charge laptops from a car battery). I was hoping the Trim-Slice H would be suitable. I am concerned with its fixed 1GB memory. The Utilite looked like a promising alternative, but supports only SSD. We may have to wait for nettops based on the new Atom technology for a one-box solution. In the meantime, the current Atom based systems are doable in an off-grid deployment. By the way, the need for the school server is closer to 50 hours per week than 24/7. Normally it needs to be booted only during the hours when children are in school. Tony On 08/17/2013 06:21 AM, Jerry Vonau wrote: On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 05:49 +0200, Tony Anderson wrote: Hi, What is the disk capacity required by internet-in-a-box? 600-700 gigs The purpose of the server is to deliver the information not available from the internet. Yup, or when your offline. The cost of a UPS which is required for a system on the grid is $80-100. Think the issue is mainly about off-grid systems, those are usually 12v. What would be neat is if there was a power supply that you could replace in your standard PC that used 12v as the supply voltage. Anybody know of a manufacture that supplies one? I'd hate to see what the size of the battery pack and the recharging requirements needed of the solar/wind/insert others recharging system that would be needed to run such a beast. In my experience, there is need for one school server at a school supporting 30-200 XOs. Know of any low power devices that you might recommend for off-grid use? Jerry ___ Server-devel mailing list Server-devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel
