Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 01:46:33PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
>> I would assume that that is true for all PHY's - if there is no link to keep
>> the
>> carrier active on I would think that the power consumption is nominal across
>> the
>> board. Once the PHY detects link
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 01:46:33PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
> I would assume that that is true for all PHY's - if there is no link to keep
> the
> carrier active on I would think that the power consumption is nominal across
> the
> board. Once the PHY detects link pulses it should obviously use
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 01:46:33PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
I would assume that that is true for all PHY's - if there is no link to keep
the
carrier active on I would think that the power consumption is nominal across
the
board. Once the PHY detects link pulses it should obviously use
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 01:46:33PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
I would assume that that is true for all PHY's - if there is no link to keep
the
carrier active on I would think that the power consumption is nominal across
the
board. Once the PHY detects link pulses it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:35:15 PDT, "Kok, Auke" said:
>
>>> How much power does a non-connected NIC consume, and can you save power
>>> by forcing 10 MBit until a link is detected (doubling negotiation time)?
>> no, the PHY consumes a minimal amount of energy when not
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:35:15 PDT, "Kok, Auke" said:
> > How much power does a non-connected NIC consume, and can you save power
> > by forcing 10 MBit until a link is detected (doubling negotiation time)?
>
> no, the PHY consumes a minimal amount of energy when not connected,
> regardless of
>
Bodo Eggert wrote:
> Kok, Auke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> K.Prasad wrote:
>
>>> Without the side-effect of experiencing a link-flap when switching to a
>>> lower-speed (with its toll in terms of down-time for auto-negotiation,
>>> STP, etc), the Interrupt Moderation Algorithm dynamically
Bodo Eggert wrote:
Kok, Auke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
K.Prasad wrote:
Without the side-effect of experiencing a link-flap when switching to a
lower-speed (with its toll in terms of down-time for auto-negotiation,
STP, etc), the Interrupt Moderation Algorithm dynamically adjusts the
number
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:35:15 PDT, Kok, Auke said:
How much power does a non-connected NIC consume, and can you save power
by forcing 10 MBit until a link is detected (doubling negotiation time)?
no, the PHY consumes a minimal amount of energy when not connected,
regardless of
whether it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:35:15 PDT, Kok, Auke said:
How much power does a non-connected NIC consume, and can you save power
by forcing 10 MBit until a link is detected (doubling negotiation time)?
no, the PHY consumes a minimal amount of energy when not connected,
Kok, Auke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> K.Prasad wrote:
>> Without the side-effect of experiencing a link-flap when switching to a
>> lower-speed (with its toll in terms of down-time for auto-negotiation,
>> STP, etc), the Interrupt Moderation Algorithm dynamically adjusts the
>> number of
Mark Gross wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 11:41:17AM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
>> Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:31:51PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
you most certainly want to do this in userspace I think.
One of the biggest problems is that link negotiation can
K.Prasad wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:11:17 +0530, Kok, Auke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:31:51PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
you most certainly want to do this in userspace I think.
One of the biggest problems is that link
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:11:17 +0530, Kok, Auke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:31:51PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
you most certainly want to do this in userspace I think.
One of the biggest problems is that link negotiation can take a
significant
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:11:17 +0530, Kok, Auke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:31:51PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
you most certainly want to do this in userspace I think.
One of the biggest problems is that link negotiation can take a
significant
K.Prasad wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:11:17 +0530, Kok, Auke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:31:51PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
you most certainly want to do this in userspace I think.
One of the biggest problems is that link negotiation can take
Mark Gross wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 11:41:17AM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:31:51PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
you most certainly want to do this in userspace I think.
One of the biggest problems is that link negotiation can take a
Kok, Auke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
K.Prasad wrote:
Without the side-effect of experiencing a link-flap when switching to a
lower-speed (with its toll in terms of down-time for auto-negotiation,
STP, etc), the Interrupt Moderation Algorithm dynamically adjusts the
number of interrupts based
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 11:41:17AM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
> Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:31:51PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
> >> you most certainly want to do this in userspace I think.
> >>
> >> One of the biggest problems is that link negotiation can take a
> >>
Am Dienstag 09 Oktober 2007 schrieb Lennart Sorensen:
> Now if you were trying to transfer a lot of data to the laptop, would it
> be more power efficient to do it at gigabit speeds so you can finish
> sooner and shut down the machine entirely, or to slow to 100mbit and
> take longer to do it,
Am Dienstag 09 Oktober 2007 schrieb Lennart Sorensen:
Now if you were trying to transfer a lot of data to the laptop, would it
be more power efficient to do it at gigabit speeds so you can finish
sooner and shut down the machine entirely, or to slow to 100mbit and
take longer to do it, and
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 11:41:17AM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:31:51PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
you most certainly want to do this in userspace I think.
One of the biggest problems is that link negotiation can take a
significant amount
of
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:31:51PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
>> you most certainly want to do this in userspace I think.
>>
>> One of the biggest problems is that link negotiation can take a significant
>> amount
>> of time, well over several seconds (1 to 3 seconds
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:31:51PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
> you most certainly want to do this in userspace I think.
>
> One of the biggest problems is that link negotiation can take a significant
> amount
> of time, well over several seconds (1 to 3 seconds typical) with gigabit, and
> having
Am Dienstag 09 Oktober 2007 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> Question is, how to implement it correctly? Daemon that would watch
> data rates and switch speeds using mii-tool would be simple, but is
> that enough?
Do you only want to affect true ethernet devices this way? It seems
to me that the savings
Am Dienstag 09 Oktober 2007 schrieb Pavel Machek:
Question is, how to implement it correctly? Daemon that would watch
data rates and switch speeds using mii-tool would be simple, but is
that enough?
Do you only want to affect true ethernet devices this way? It seems
to me that the savings for
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:31:51PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
you most certainly want to do this in userspace I think.
One of the biggest problems is that link negotiation can take a significant
amount
of time, well over several seconds (1 to 3 seconds typical) with gigabit, and
having your
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:31:51PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
you most certainly want to do this in userspace I think.
One of the biggest problems is that link negotiation can take a significant
amount
of time, well over several seconds (1 to 3 seconds typical) with
Hi Auke,
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:31:51PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
> Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I've found that gbit vs. 100mbit power consumption difference is about
> > 1W -- pretty significant. (Maybe powertop should include it in the
> > tips section? :).
> >
> > Energy Star
Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
I've found that gbit vs. 100mbit power consumption difference is about
1W -- pretty significant. (Maybe powertop should include it in the
tips section? :).
Energy Star people insist that machines should switch down to 100mbit
when network is idle, and I guess that makes
Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I've found that gbit vs. 100mbit power consumption difference is about
> 1W -- pretty significant. (Maybe powertop should include it in the
> tips section? :).
>
> Energy Star people insist that machines should switch down to 100mbit
> when network is idle, and I
Hi!
I've found that gbit vs. 100mbit power consumption difference is about
1W -- pretty significant. (Maybe powertop should include it in the
tips section? :).
Energy Star people insist that machines should switch down to 100mbit
when network is idle, and I guess that makes a lot of sense -- you
Hi!
I've found that gbit vs. 100mbit power consumption difference is about
1W -- pretty significant. (Maybe powertop should include it in the
tips section? :).
Energy Star people insist that machines should switch down to 100mbit
when network is idle, and I guess that makes a lot of sense -- you
Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
I've found that gbit vs. 100mbit power consumption difference is about
1W -- pretty significant. (Maybe powertop should include it in the
tips section? :).
Energy Star people insist that machines should switch down to 100mbit
when network is idle, and I guess that
Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
I've found that gbit vs. 100mbit power consumption difference is about
1W -- pretty significant. (Maybe powertop should include it in the
tips section? :).
Energy Star people insist that machines should switch down to 100mbit
when network is idle, and I guess that makes
Hi Auke,
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:31:51PM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
I've found that gbit vs. 100mbit power consumption difference is about
1W -- pretty significant. (Maybe powertop should include it in the
tips section? :).
Energy Star people insist that
36 matches
Mail list logo
