[gentoo-user] Linux becomes expensive ;)

[gentoo-user] Linux becomes expensive ;)

[Florian Philipp]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 743 bytes --]

Hi guys!

I've just tested the energy consumption of my PC. Aparently Gentoo consumes a 
quiet a bit more than Windows XP: 213 W compared to 188 W

PowerNow is activated and works on both cores (tested). The same hardware is 
plugged in and works. I'll attach the output of lspci, lsmod and cpuinfo as 
well as my world-file just in case it's related to some software.

Is there anything I've forgotten? Where does my energy go?

A short overview of my hardware:

AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+ EE
Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe (WLAN should be deactivated)
2048 MB DDR2 Corsair
SoundBlaster Audigy 2 ZS
ATI Radeon 1950 Pro (fglrx)
2 SATA2 HDDs
1 SATA1 DVD-RAM
Floppy
USB mouse, keyboard and printer
TFT screen (connected via DVI)


 

[-- Attachment #1.2: cpuinfo.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1344 bytes --]

processor	: 0
vendor_id	: AuthenticAMD
cpu family	: 15
model		: 75
model name	: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4200+
stepping	: 2
cpu MHz		: 1000.000
cache size	: 512 KB
physical id	: 0
siblings	: 2
core id		: 0
cpu cores	: 2
fpu		: yes
fpu_exception	: yes
cpuid level	: 1
wp		: yes
flags		: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt rdtscp lm 3dnowext 3dnow pni cx16 lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm cr8_legacy
bogomips	: 2011.55
TLB size	: 1024 4K pages
clflush size	: 64
cache_alignment	: 64
address sizes	: 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management: ts fid vid ttp tm stc

processor	: 1
vendor_id	: AuthenticAMD
cpu family	: 15
model		: 75
model name	: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4200+
stepping	: 2
cpu MHz		: 1000.000
cache size	: 512 KB
physical id	: 0
siblings	: 2
core id		: 1
cpu cores	: 2
fpu		: yes
fpu_exception	: yes
cpuid level	: 1
wp		: yes
flags		: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt rdtscp lm 3dnowext 3dnow pni cx16 lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm cr8_legacy
bogomips	: 2011.55
TLB size	: 1024 4K pages
clflush size	: 64
cache_alignment	: 64
address sizes	: 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management: ts fid vid ttp tm stc


[-- Attachment #1.3: lspci.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2643 bytes --]

00:00.0 RAM memory: nVidia Corporation C51 Host Bridge (rev a2)
00:00.1 RAM memory: nVidia Corporation C51 Memory Controller 0 (rev a2)
00:00.2 RAM memory: nVidia Corporation C51 Memory Controller 1 (rev a2)
00:00.3 RAM memory: nVidia Corporation C51 Memory Controller 5 (rev a2)
00:00.4 RAM memory: nVidia Corporation C51 Memory Controller 4 (rev a2)
00:00.5 RAM memory: nVidia Corporation C51 Host Bridge (rev a2)
00:00.6 RAM memory: nVidia Corporation C51 Memory Controller 3 (rev a2)
00:00.7 RAM memory: nVidia Corporation C51 Memory Controller 2 (rev a2)
00:03.0 PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation C51 PCI Express Bridge (rev a1)
00:04.0 PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation C51 PCI Express Bridge (rev a1)
00:08.0 RAM memory: nVidia Corporation MCP55 Memory Controller (rev a1)
00:09.0 ISA bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP55 LPC Bridge (rev a2)
00:09.1 SMBus: nVidia Corporation MCP55 SMBus (rev a2)
00:09.2 RAM memory: nVidia Corporation MCP55 Memory Controller (rev a2)
00:0a.0 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP55 USB Controller (rev a1)
00:0a.1 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP55 USB Controller (rev a2)
00:0c.0 IDE interface: nVidia Corporation MCP55 IDE (rev a1)
00:0d.0 IDE interface: nVidia Corporation MCP55 SATA Controller (rev a2)
00:0d.1 IDE interface: nVidia Corporation MCP55 SATA Controller (rev a2)
00:0d.2 IDE interface: nVidia Corporation MCP55 SATA Controller (rev a2)
00:0e.0 PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP55 PCI bridge (rev a2)
00:10.0 Bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP55 Ethernet (rev a2)
00:11.0 Bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP55 Ethernet (rev a2)
00:12.0 PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP55 PCI Express bridge (rev a2)
00:14.0 PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP55 PCI Express bridge (rev a2)
00:16.0 PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP55 PCI Express bridge (rev a2)
00:17.0 PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP55 PCI Express bridge (rev a2)
00:18.0 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron] HyperTransport Technology Configuration
00:18.1 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron] Address Map
00:18.2 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron] DRAM Controller
00:18.3 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron] Miscellaneous Control
02:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Radeon X1950 Pro (Primary) (PCIE)
02:00.1 Display controller: ATI Technologies Inc Radeon X1950 Pro (Secondary) (PCIE)
03:07.0 Multimedia audio controller: Creative Labs SB Audigy (rev 04)
03:07.1 Input device controller: Creative Labs SB Audigy Game Port (rev 04)
03:07.2 FireWire (IEEE 1394): Creative Labs SB Audigy FireWire Port (rev 04)

[-- Attachment #1.4: world.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1772 bytes --]

app-forensics/chkrootkit
media-sound/alsa-utils
net-www/netscape-flash
kde-base/kgpg
sys-devel/crossdev
media-gfx/xsane
app-office/kpresenter
sys-devel/distcc-config
app-backup/rdiff-backup
kde-base/kde-i18n
media-libs/alsa-lib
x11-drivers/ati-drivers
app-arch/p7zip
mail-filter/razor
mail-client/mutt
kde-base/kate
x11-misc/numlockx
app-admin/syslog-ng
kde-base/kdebase-kioslaves
sys-kernel/gentoo-sources
sys-apps/parted
app-admin/keepassx
sys-apps/dbus
kde-base/kasteroids
app-pda/gtkpod
mail-filter/spamassassin
app-portage/eix
x11-misc/googleearth
sys-fs/reiserfsprogs
kde-base/kappfinder
kde-base/drkonqi
dev-util/kdevelop
net-p2p/rtorrent
media-video/kaffeine
x11-base/x11-drm
kde-base/kdeadmin-meta
sys-process/vixie-cron
net-print/bjfilter
games-simulation/openttd
sys-apps/pmount
kde-misc/krusader
media-gfx/gimp
net-misc/dhcpcd
app-misc/pax-utils
app-forensics/autopsy
app-text/ispell
kde-base/ksirc
kde-base/kmenuedit
kde-base/ksysguard
sys-apps/hal
kde-base/kolourpaint
www-client/links
app-office/kspread
kde-base/kwalletmanager
app-text/pinfo
kde-base/kdegames-meta
media-sound/amarok
x11-base/xorg-x11
kde-base/kdebase-startkde
media-video/kplayer
dev-util/ccache
kde-base/konsole
app-admin/logrotate
sci-astronomy/celestia
kde-base/kget
kde-base/konqueror
app-portage/genlop
kde-base/kmail
sys-apps/qtparted
app-office/koshell
app-office/karbon
app-emulation/wine
kde-base/ark
x11-libs/qt
kde-base/kdelibs
app-admin/sudo
app-office/kword
kde-base/kscd
app-arch/ppmd
app-doc/linux-kernel-in-a-nutshell
kde-misc/filelight
net-www/nspluginwrapper
sys-apps/slocate
kde-base/kpdf
sys-fs/udftools
app-dicts/ispell-de
www-client/mozilla-firefox
app-cdr/k3b
app-crypt/gnupg
sys-devel/distcc
kde-base/kdm
app-portage/gentoolkit
sys-apps/memtest86+
sys-apps/hotplug

[-- Attachment #1.5: lsmod.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2257 bytes --]

Module                  Size  Used by
snd_seq_midi            6272  0 
snd_emu10k1_synth       5824  0 
snd_emux_synth         29120  1 snd_emu10k1_synth
snd_seq_virmidi         5056  1 snd_emux_synth
snd_seq_midi_emul       5376  1 snd_emux_synth
snd_pcm_oss            36896  0 
snd_mixer_oss          14720  1 snd_pcm_oss
snd_seq_oss            26944  0 
snd_seq_midi_event      4928  3 snd_seq_midi,snd_seq_virmidi,snd_seq_oss
snd_seq                42816  8 snd_seq_midi,snd_emux_synth,snd_seq_virmidi,snd_seq_midi_emul,snd_seq_oss,snd_seq_midi_event
rtc                     7200  0 
reiserfs              214336  1 
pktcdvd                28432  1 
powernow_k8             9696  1 
processor              18640  1 powernow_k8
cpufreq_ondemand        6352  1 
freq_table              2256  2 powernow_k8,cpufreq_ondemand
fglrx                 640196  11 
usb_storage            29956  0 
uhci_hcd               21272  0 
floppy                 55464  0 
usbhid                 21920  0 
snd_emu10k1           104480  2 snd_emu10k1_synth
snd_rawmidi            18464  3 snd_seq_midi,snd_seq_virmidi,snd_emu10k1
snd_ac97_codec         87768  1 snd_emu10k1
ac97_bus                1792  1 snd_ac97_codec
snd_pcm                58120  3 snd_pcm_oss,snd_emu10k1,snd_ac97_codec
snd_seq_device          5332  7 snd_seq_midi,snd_emu10k1_synth,snd_emux_synth,snd_seq_oss,snd_seq,snd_emu10k1,snd_rawmidi
snd_timer              17672  3 snd_seq,snd_emu10k1,snd_pcm
snd_page_alloc          6672  2 snd_emu10k1,snd_pcm
snd_util_mem            2496  2 snd_emux_synth,snd_emu10k1
snd_hwdep               7432  2 snd_emux_synth,snd_emu10k1
snd                    43240  15 snd_emux_synth,snd_seq_virmidi,snd_pcm_oss,snd_mixer_oss,snd_seq_oss,snd_seq,snd_emu10k1,snd_rawmidi,snd_ac97_codec,snd_pcm,snd_seq_device,snd_timer,snd_hwdep
ehci_hcd               26956  0 
ohci_hcd               17924  0 
usbcore               107568  6 usb_storage,uhci_hcd,usbhid,ehci_hcd,ohci_hcd
i2c_nforce2             4544  0 
i2c_core               14464  1 i2c_nforce2
forcedeth              38024  0 
k8temp                  4480  0 
hwmon                   1992  1 k8temp
ata_generic             5572  0 
sg                     28136  0 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux becomes expensive ;)

[Jeff Horelick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1268 bytes --]

Florian,

That's not that big of a difference...Also, Gentoo/Linux does not have
powersaving for every device like Windows XP...it's writing to the hard
drive more often and it doesn't spin as much down when it's not in use to
help performance. Also, if i was you, i'd be worried about your system using
that LITTLE energy especially since you have a pretty hefty CPU, video card,
motherboard, 2 hardrives and al the rest of your components.

On 6/2/07, Florian Philipp <f.philipp@addcom.de> wrote:
>
> Hi guys!
>
> I've just tested the energy consumption of my PC. Aparently Gentoo
> consumes a
> quiet a bit more than Windows XP: 213 W compared to 188 W
>
> PowerNow is activated and works on both cores (tested). The same hardware
> is
> plugged in and works. I'll attach the output of lspci, lsmod and cpuinfo
> as
> well as my world-file just in case it's related to some software.
>
> Is there anything I've forgotten? Where does my energy go?
>
> A short overview of my hardware:
>
> AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+ EE
> Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe (WLAN should be deactivated)
> 2048 MB DDR2 Corsair
> SoundBlaster Audigy 2 ZS
> ATI Radeon 1950 Pro (fglrx)
> 2 SATA2 HDDs
> 1 SATA1 DVD-RAM
> Floppy
> USB mouse, keyboard and printer
> TFT screen (connected via DVI)
>
>
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1616 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux becomes expensive ;)

[Timo Boettcher]

* Jeff Horelick <jdhore1@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Linux is] writing to the hard
> drive more often and it doesn't spin as much down when it's not in use to
> help performance.
There is the "Laptop-Mode" for that.
> Also, if i was you, i'd be worried about your system using
> that LITTLE energy especially since you have a pretty hefty CPU, video card,
> motherboard, 2 hardrives and al the rest of your components.
Just for comparison,
http://blog.spida.net/index.php?/archives/3-Powerusage.html has some
measurements of a low-power system.

 Timo
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux becomes expensive ;)

[Florian Philipp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1929 bytes --]

Am Samstag 02 Juni 2007 20:03 schrieb Jeff Horelick:
> Florian,
>
> That's not that big of a difference...Also, Gentoo/Linux does not have
> powersaving for every device like Windows XP...it's writing to the hard
> drive more often and it doesn't spin as much down when it's not in use to
> help performance. Also, if i was you, i'd be worried about your system
> using that LITTLE energy especially since you have a pretty hefty CPU,
> video card, motherboard, 2 hardrives and al the rest of your components.
>
> On 6/2/07, Florian Philipp <f.philipp@addcom.de> wrote:
> > Hi guys!
> >
> > I've just tested the energy consumption of my PC. Aparently Gentoo
> > consumes a
> > quiet a bit more than Windows XP: 213 W compared to 188 W
> >
> > PowerNow is activated and works on both cores (tested). The same hardware
> > is
> > plugged in and works. I'll attach the output of lspci, lsmod and cpuinfo
> > as
> > well as my world-file just in case it's related to some software.
> >
> > Is there anything I've forgotten? Where does my energy go?
> >
> > A short overview of my hardware:
> >
> > AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+ EE
> > Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe (WLAN should be deactivated)
> > 2048 MB DDR2 Corsair
> > SoundBlaster Audigy 2 ZS
> > ATI Radeon 1950 Pro (fglrx)
> > 2 SATA2 HDDs
> > 1 SATA1 DVD-RAM
> > Floppy
> > USB mouse, keyboard and printer
> > TFT screen (connected via DVI)

Well, I've forgotten to mention that I didn't substract all peripheral 
devices. My new calculations (idle, nothing but the big black box under my 
desk): Linux 137W, Win 114W (20% or 18EUR / 20$ p.a.).

It seems I can't disable my onboard WLAN completely and while Win deactivates 
it because I don't provide drivers, Linux gives it some power although no 
software is accessing it. 

By the way: Maximum output while testing with 3DMark 2006: 219W. I wonder why 
I had to buy a 400W power supply...

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux becomes expensive ;)

[Dan Farrell]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 13:16:33 +0200
Florian Philipp <f.philipp@addcom.de> wrote:

> Am Samstag 02 Juni 2007 20:03 schrieb Jeff Horelick:
> > Florian,
> >
> > That's not that big of a difference...Also, Gentoo/Linux does not
> > have powersaving for every device like Windows XP...it's writing to
> > the hard drive more often and it doesn't spin as much down when
> > it's not in use to help performance. Also, if i was you, i'd be
> > worried about your system using that LITTLE energy especially since
> > you have a pretty hefty CPU, video card, motherboard, 2 hardrives
> > and al the rest of your components.
> >
> > On 6/2/07, Florian Philipp <f.philipp@addcom.de> wrote:
> > > Hi guys!
> > >
> > > I've just tested the energy consumption of my PC. Aparently Gentoo
> > > consumes a
> > > quiet a bit more than Windows XP: 213 W compared to 188 W
> > >
> > > PowerNow is activated and works on both cores (tested). The same
> > > hardware is
> > > plugged in and works. I'll attach the output of lspci, lsmod and
> > > cpuinfo as
> > > well as my world-file just in case it's related to some software.
> > >
> > > Is there anything I've forgotten? Where does my energy go?
> > >
> > > A short overview of my hardware:
> > >
> > > AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+ EE
> > > Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe (WLAN should be deactivated)
> > > 2048 MB DDR2 Corsair
> > > SoundBlaster Audigy 2 ZS
> > > ATI Radeon 1950 Pro (fglrx)
> > > 2 SATA2 HDDs
> > > 1 SATA1 DVD-RAM
> > > Floppy
> > > USB mouse, keyboard and printer
> > > TFT screen (connected via DVI)
> 
> Well, I've forgotten to mention that I didn't substract all
> peripheral devices. My new calculations (idle, nothing but the big
> black box under my desk): Linux 137W, Win 114W (20% or 18EUR / 20$
> p.a.).
> 
> It seems I can't disable my onboard WLAN completely and while Win
> deactivates it because I don't provide drivers, Linux gives it some
> power although no software is accessing it. 
> 
> By the way: Maximum output while testing with 3DMark 2006: 219W. I
> wonder why I had to buy a 400W power supply...

Maybe you can power off the wlan with a wireless-utils program, or
maybe by unloading the kernel module?  

Have you set up power management, powersave frequency governors?  Have
you set up your disk(s) to idle quickly?  
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux becomes expensive ;)

[Florian Philipp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2885 bytes --]

Am Sonntag 03 Juni 2007 18:03 schrieb Dan Farrell:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 13:16:33 +0200
>
> Florian Philipp <f.philipp@addcom.de> wrote:
> > Am Samstag 02 Juni 2007 20:03 schrieb Jeff Horelick:
> > > Florian,
> > >
> > > That's not that big of a difference...Also, Gentoo/Linux does not
> > > have powersaving for every device like Windows XP...it's writing to
> > > the hard drive more often and it doesn't spin as much down when
> > > it's not in use to help performance. Also, if i was you, i'd be
> > > worried about your system using that LITTLE energy especially since
> > > you have a pretty hefty CPU, video card, motherboard, 2 hardrives
> > > and al the rest of your components.
> > >
> > > On 6/2/07, Florian Philipp <f.philipp@addcom.de> wrote:
> > > > Hi guys!
> > > >
> > > > I've just tested the energy consumption of my PC. Aparently Gentoo
> > > > consumes a
> > > > quiet a bit more than Windows XP: 213 W compared to 188 W
> > > >
> > > > PowerNow is activated and works on both cores (tested). The same
> > > > hardware is
> > > > plugged in and works. I'll attach the output of lspci, lsmod and
> > > > cpuinfo as
> > > > well as my world-file just in case it's related to some software.
> > > >
> > > > Is there anything I've forgotten? Where does my energy go?
> > > >
> > > > A short overview of my hardware:
> > > >
> > > > AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+ EE
> > > > Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe (WLAN should be deactivated)
> > > > 2048 MB DDR2 Corsair
> > > > SoundBlaster Audigy 2 ZS
> > > > ATI Radeon 1950 Pro (fglrx)
> > > > 2 SATA2 HDDs
> > > > 1 SATA1 DVD-RAM
> > > > Floppy
> > > > USB mouse, keyboard and printer
> > > > TFT screen (connected via DVI)
> >
> > Well, I've forgotten to mention that I didn't substract all
> > peripheral devices. My new calculations (idle, nothing but the big
> > black box under my desk): Linux 137W, Win 114W (20% or 18EUR / 20$
> > p.a.).
> >
> > It seems I can't disable my onboard WLAN completely and while Win
> > deactivates it because I don't provide drivers, Linux gives it some
> > power although no software is accessing it.
> >
> > By the way: Maximum output while testing with 3DMark 2006: 219W. I
> > wonder why I had to buy a 400W power supply...
>
> Maybe you can power off the wlan with a wireless-utils program, or
> maybe by unloading the kernel module?
>
> Have you set up power management, powersave frequency governors?  Have
> you set up your disk(s) to idle quickly?

There is no kernel module. I'll play around with modules, configs and tools 
later. It's not urgent, it was more like a mystery that I wanted to solve.

Yes, powermanagement (aka "PowerNow!") is activated. No, my disks do not spin 
down and should not because of the attrition (I hope that's the right word) 
that comes with spinning up.

Anyway, thanks for your input, guys!

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux becomes expensive ;)

[Ryan Sims]

On 6/3/07, Florian Philipp <f.philipp@addcom.de> wrote:
> Am Sonntag 03 Juni 2007 18:03 schrieb Dan Farrell:
> > On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 13:16:33 +0200
> >
> > Florian Philipp <f.philipp@addcom.de> wrote:
> > > Am Samstag 02 Juni 2007 20:03 schrieb Jeff Horelick:
> > > > Florian,
> > > >
> > > > That's not that big of a difference...Also, Gentoo/Linux does not
> > > > have powersaving for every device like Windows XP...it's writing to
> > > > the hard drive more often and it doesn't spin as much down when
> > > > it's not in use to help performance. Also, if i was you, i'd be
> > > > worried about your system using that LITTLE energy especially since
> > > > you have a pretty hefty CPU, video card, motherboard, 2 hardrives
> > > > and al the rest of your components.
> > > >
> > > > On 6/2/07, Florian Philipp <f.philipp@addcom.de> wrote:
> > > > > Hi guys!
> > > > >
> > > > > I've just tested the energy consumption of my PC. Aparently Gentoo
> > > > > consumes a
> > > > > quiet a bit more than Windows XP: 213 W compared to 188 W
> > > > >
> > > > > PowerNow is activated and works on both cores (tested). The same
> > > > > hardware is
> > > > > plugged in and works. I'll attach the output of lspci, lsmod and
> > > > > cpuinfo as
> > > > > well as my world-file just in case it's related to some software.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there anything I've forgotten? Where does my energy go?
> > > > >
> > > > > A short overview of my hardware:
> > > > >
> > > > > AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+ EE
> > > > > Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe (WLAN should be deactivated)
> > > > > 2048 MB DDR2 Corsair
> > > > > SoundBlaster Audigy 2 ZS
> > > > > ATI Radeon 1950 Pro (fglrx)
> > > > > 2 SATA2 HDDs
> > > > > 1 SATA1 DVD-RAM
> > > > > Floppy
> > > > > USB mouse, keyboard and printer
> > > > > TFT screen (connected via DVI)
> > >
> > > Well, I've forgotten to mention that I didn't substract all
> > > peripheral devices. My new calculations (idle, nothing but the big
> > > black box under my desk): Linux 137W, Win 114W (20% or 18EUR / 20$
> > > p.a.).
> > >
> > > It seems I can't disable my onboard WLAN completely and while Win
> > > deactivates it because I don't provide drivers, Linux gives it some
> > > power although no software is accessing it.
> > >
> > > By the way: Maximum output while testing with 3DMark 2006: 219W. I
> > > wonder why I had to buy a 400W power supply...
> >
> > Maybe you can power off the wlan with a wireless-utils program, or
> > maybe by unloading the kernel module?
> >
> > Have you set up power management, powersave frequency governors?  Have
> > you set up your disk(s) to idle quickly?
>
> There is no kernel module. I'll play around with modules, configs and tools
> later. It's not urgent, it was more like a mystery that I wanted to solve.
>
> Yes, powermanagement (aka "PowerNow!") is activated. No, my disks do not spin
> down and should not because of the attrition (I hope that's the right word)
> that comes with spinning up.

[somewhat OT]:
Please read this: http://labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.pdf
The damage done to hard drives in spinup/spindown is in the same
category of juju as ricer cflags and cloud seeding.  Drive activity
and such is *not* an indicator of failure, while there may be some
mechanical stress on the disk, but it's not going to cause your drive
to fail noticeably earlier.  Spin them down, save the power, and don't
listen to fearmongers.[/OT]

-- 
Ryan W Sims
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux becomes expensive ;)

[Elias Probst]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 667 bytes --]

On Sunday 03 June 2007 19:55:22 Florian Philipp wrote:
> Hi guys!
>
> I've just tested the energy consumption of my PC. Aparently Gentoo consumes
> a quiet a bit more than Windows XP: 213 W compared to 188 W
>
> PowerNow is activated and works on both cores (tested). The same hardware
> is plugged in and works. I'll attach the output of lspci, lsmod and cpuinfo
> as well as my world-file just in case it's related to some software.
>
> Is there anything I've forgotten? Where does my energy go?

Try this:
http://www.linuxpowertop.org/powertop.php

Regards, Elias P.

-- 
A really nice number:
"09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0"

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux becomes expensive ;)

[Ralf Stephan]

> Just for comparison,
> http://blog.spida.net/index.php?/archives/3-Powerusage.html has some
> measurements of a low-power system.

That's not even optimal. My King Young w/ 1.6GHz Celeron, 500 MB RAM,
and Intel 855 graphics uses just 30-35W at 100% CPU.

And it's silent!


ralf
P.S. see e.g. http://www.mini-itx.de

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux becomes expensive ;)

[Florian Philipp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4032 bytes --]

Am Sonntag 03 Juni 2007 19:06 schrieb Ryan Sims:
> On 6/3/07, Florian Philipp <f.philipp@addcom.de> wrote:
> > Am Sonntag 03 Juni 2007 18:03 schrieb Dan Farrell:
> > > On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 13:16:33 +0200
> > >
> > > Florian Philipp <f.philipp@addcom.de> wrote:
> > > > Am Samstag 02 Juni 2007 20:03 schrieb Jeff Horelick:
> > > > > Florian,
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not that big of a difference...Also, Gentoo/Linux does not
> > > > > have powersaving for every device like Windows XP...it's writing to
> > > > > the hard drive more often and it doesn't spin as much down when
> > > > > it's not in use to help performance. Also, if i was you, i'd be
> > > > > worried about your system using that LITTLE energy especially since
> > > > > you have a pretty hefty CPU, video card, motherboard, 2 hardrives
> > > > > and al the rest of your components.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 6/2/07, Florian Philipp <f.philipp@addcom.de> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi guys!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've just tested the energy consumption of my PC. Aparently
> > > > > > Gentoo consumes a
> > > > > > quiet a bit more than Windows XP: 213 W compared to 188 W
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PowerNow is activated and works on both cores (tested). The same
> > > > > > hardware is
> > > > > > plugged in and works. I'll attach the output of lspci, lsmod and
> > > > > > cpuinfo as
> > > > > > well as my world-file just in case it's related to some software.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there anything I've forgotten? Where does my energy go?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A short overview of my hardware:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+ EE
> > > > > > Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe (WLAN should be deactivated)
> > > > > > 2048 MB DDR2 Corsair
> > > > > > SoundBlaster Audigy 2 ZS
> > > > > > ATI Radeon 1950 Pro (fglrx)
> > > > > > 2 SATA2 HDDs
> > > > > > 1 SATA1 DVD-RAM
> > > > > > Floppy
> > > > > > USB mouse, keyboard and printer
> > > > > > TFT screen (connected via DVI)
> > > >
> > > > Well, I've forgotten to mention that I didn't substract all
> > > > peripheral devices. My new calculations (idle, nothing but the big
> > > > black box under my desk): Linux 137W, Win 114W (20% or 18EUR / 20$
> > > > p.a.).
> > > >
> > > > It seems I can't disable my onboard WLAN completely and while Win
> > > > deactivates it because I don't provide drivers, Linux gives it some
> > > > power although no software is accessing it.
> > > >
> > > > By the way: Maximum output while testing with 3DMark 2006: 219W. I
> > > > wonder why I had to buy a 400W power supply...
> > >
> > > Maybe you can power off the wlan with a wireless-utils program, or
> > > maybe by unloading the kernel module?
> > >
> > > Have you set up power management, powersave frequency governors?  Have
> > > you set up your disk(s) to idle quickly?
> >
> > There is no kernel module. I'll play around with modules, configs and
> > tools later. It's not urgent, it was more like a mystery that I wanted to
> > solve.
> >
> > Yes, powermanagement (aka "PowerNow!") is activated. No, my disks do not
> > spin down and should not because of the attrition (I hope that's the
> > right word) that comes with spinning up.
>
> [somewhat OT]:
> Please read this: http://labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.pdf
> The damage done to hard drives in spinup/spindown is in the same
> category of juju as ricer cflags and cloud seeding.  Drive activity
> and such is *not* an indicator of failure, while there may be some
> mechanical stress on the disk, but it's not going to cause your drive
> to fail noticeably earlier.  Spin them down, save the power, and don't
> listen to fearmongers.[/OT]
>
> --
> Ryan W Sims

Thanks!

I've known that this report exists but have newer actually seen it myself. I'm 
still a bit reluctant because I don't suspect that HDDs in Google's server 
farm spind down as often as mine would.
Well, I'll just close my eyes and hope for the best when I hear my darlings 
shutting down. ;)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux becomes expensive ;)

[Florian Philipp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 372 bytes --]

>
> I've known that this report exists but have newer actually seen it myself.
> I'm still a bit reluctant because I don't suspect that HDDs in Google's
> server farm spind down as often as mine would.
> Well, I'll just close my eyes and hope for the best when I hear my darlings
> shutting down. ;)

Argh, never, not newer. That's a typo that even I should have found...

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux becomes expensive ;)

[Florian Philipp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 842 bytes --]

Am Sonntag 03 Juni 2007 19:19 schrieb Elias Probst:
> On Sunday 03 June 2007 19:55:22 Florian Philipp wrote:
> > Hi guys!
> >
> > I've just tested the energy consumption of my PC. Aparently Gentoo
> > consumes a quiet a bit more than Windows XP: 213 W compared to 188 W
> >
> > PowerNow is activated and works on both cores (tested). The same hardware
> > is plugged in and works. I'll attach the output of lspci, lsmod and
> > cpuinfo as well as my world-file just in case it's related to some
> > software.
> >
> > Is there anything I've forgotten? Where does my energy go?
>
> Try this:
> http://www.linuxpowertop.org/powertop.php
>
> Regards, Elias P.

Nice software, will be handy in the future. Thanks again! 
However, it seems I'll have to wait until sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-2.6.21 is 
marked stable for AMD64.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux becomes expensive ;)

[Dan Farrell]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 19:37:19 +0200
Florian Philipp <f.philipp@addcom.de> wrote:

> Am Sonntag 03 Juni 2007 19:06 schrieb Ryan Sims:
> > On 6/3/07, Florian Philipp <f.philipp@addcom.de> wrote:
> > > Am Sonntag 03 Juni 2007 18:03 schrieb Dan Farrell:
> > > > On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 13:16:33 +0200
> > > >
> > > > Florian Philipp <f.philipp@addcom.de> wrote:
> > > > > Am Samstag 02 Juni 2007 20:03 schrieb Jeff Horelick:
> > > > > > Florian,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's not that big of a difference...Also, Gentoo/Linux
> > > > > > does not have powersaving for every device like Windows
> > > > > > XP...it's writing to the hard drive more often and it
> > > > > > doesn't spin as much down when it's not in use to help
> > > > > > performance. Also, if i was you, i'd be worried about your
> > > > > > system using that LITTLE energy especially since you have a
> > > > > > pretty hefty CPU, video card, motherboard, 2 hardrives and
> > > > > > al the rest of your components.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 6/2/07, Florian Philipp <f.philipp@addcom.de> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi guys!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've just tested the energy consumption of my PC.
> > > > > > > Aparently Gentoo consumes a
> > > > > > > quiet a bit more than Windows XP: 213 W compared to 188 W
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > PowerNow is activated and works on both cores (tested).
> > > > > > > The same hardware is
> > > > > > > plugged in and works. I'll attach the output of lspci,
> > > > > > > lsmod and cpuinfo as
> > > > > > > well as my world-file just in case it's related to some
> > > > > > > software.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is there anything I've forgotten? Where does my energy go?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A short overview of my hardware:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+ EE
> > > > > > > Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe (WLAN should be deactivated)
> > > > > > > 2048 MB DDR2 Corsair
> > > > > > > SoundBlaster Audigy 2 ZS
> > > > > > > ATI Radeon 1950 Pro (fglrx)
> > > > > > > 2 SATA2 HDDs
> > > > > > > 1 SATA1 DVD-RAM
> > > > > > > Floppy
> > > > > > > USB mouse, keyboard and printer
> > > > > > > TFT screen (connected via DVI)
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, I've forgotten to mention that I didn't substract all
> > > > > peripheral devices. My new calculations (idle, nothing but
> > > > > the big black box under my desk): Linux 137W, Win 114W (20%
> > > > > or 18EUR / 20$ p.a.).
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems I can't disable my onboard WLAN completely and while
> > > > > Win deactivates it because I don't provide drivers, Linux
> > > > > gives it some power although no software is accessing it.
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way: Maximum output while testing with 3DMark 2006:
> > > > > 219W. I wonder why I had to buy a 400W power supply...
> > > >
> > > > Maybe you can power off the wlan with a wireless-utils program,
> > > > or maybe by unloading the kernel module?
> > > >
> > > > Have you set up power management, powersave frequency
> > > > governors?  Have you set up your disk(s) to idle quickly?
> > >
> > > There is no kernel module. I'll play around with modules, configs
> > > and tools later. It's not urgent, it was more like a mystery that
> > > I wanted to solve.
> > >
> > > Yes, powermanagement (aka "PowerNow!") is activated. No, my disks
> > > do not spin down and should not because of the attrition (I hope
> > > that's the right word) that comes with spinning up.
> >
> > [somewhat OT]:
> > Please read this: http://labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.pdf
> > The damage done to hard drives in spinup/spindown is in the same
> > category of juju as ricer cflags and cloud seeding.  Drive activity
> > and such is *not* an indicator of failure, while there may be some
> > mechanical stress on the disk, but it's not going to cause your
> > drive to fail noticeably earlier.  Spin them down, save the power,
> > and don't listen to fearmongers.[/OT]
> >
> > --
> > Ryan W Sims
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> I've known that this report exists but have newer actually seen it
> myself. I'm still a bit reluctant because I don't suspect that HDDs
> in Google's server farm spind down as often as mine would.
> Well, I'll just close my eyes and hope for the best when I hear my
> darlings shutting down. ;)
In my experience, a drive is quite a lot more likely to last a long
time when you _do_ spin it down regularly.  The only drive I ever
killed before its time, was set to _not_ spin down accidentally, and
was in a tiny slimline case, and by the time i got back from work and
realized something was wrong, the outside surface of the drive was hot
enough to cook eggs on (or so i'd guess).  Now I make sure my drives
are set to spin down after a few minutes.  Don't think this is gonna
save much for power though.  I actually thought that's what you were
referring to with 'attrition;' that is, it takes just as much power to
spin up the drive as to keep it spinning for a few extra minutes.  

Thanks for the report, I found it very interesting.  
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Linux becomes expensive ;)

[Dan Farrell]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 19:46:15 +0200
Florian Philipp <f.philipp@addcom.de> wrote:

> Am Sonntag 03 Juni 2007 19:19 schrieb Elias Probst:
> > On Sunday 03 June 2007 19:55:22 Florian Philipp wrote:
> > > Hi guys!
> > >
> > > I've just tested the energy consumption of my PC. Aparently Gentoo
> > > consumes a quiet a bit more than Windows XP: 213 W compared to
> > > 188 W
> > >
> > > PowerNow is activated and works on both cores (tested). The same
> > > hardware is plugged in and works. I'll attach the output of
> > > lspci, lsmod and cpuinfo as well as my world-file just in case
> > > it's related to some software.
> > >
> > > Is there anything I've forgotten? Where does my energy go?
> >
> > Try this:
> > http://www.linuxpowertop.org/powertop.php
> >
> > Regards, Elias P.
> 
> Nice software, will be handy in the future. Thanks again! 
> However, it seems I'll have to wait until
> sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-2.6.21 is marked stable for AMD64.
is it ~amd64?  If you want it badly enough, I bet it's worth a try!
Hardly anything gets into ~arch unless it's almost ready to go.  

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Linux becomes expensive ;)

[Hendrik Boom]

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:49:21 -0500, Dan Farrell wrote:

> it takes just as much power to
> spin up the drive as to keep it spinning for a few extra minutes.  

So ... spin it down after a few more minutes?

-- hendrik

> 
> Thanks for the report, I found it very interesting.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Linux becomes expensive ;)

[Ryan Sims]

On 7/18/07, Hendrik Boom <hendrik@topoi.pooq.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:49:21 -0500, Dan Farrell wrote:
>
> > it takes just as much power to
> > spin up the drive as to keep it spinning for a few extra minutes.
>
> So ... spin it down after a few more minutes?
>
> -- hendrik

No, only spin it down when the savings from the down cycle outweigh
the power cost of spinup+spindown (I don't know whether spindown uses
extra power, to "brake" the drive or anything).

Say you have a drive that uses 1W/m (huge, but I'm being merciful to
my math skills) while in usage, and requires 5W to spinup.  If you're
going to  shut it down for 1m, you're looking at saving 1W and using
5, net use of 4, when leaving it spinning would only use 1.  However,
if it's going to be inactive for 30 min, you're using 5 and saving 30,
net savings of 25.

-- 
Ryan W Sims
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Linux becomes expensive ;)

[Julian Simioni]

On 7/18/07, Ryan Sims <rwsims@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/18/07, Hendrik Boom <hendrik@topoi.pooq.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:49:21 -0500, Dan Farrell wrote:
> >
> > > it takes just as much power to
> > > spin up the drive as to keep it spinning for a few extra minutes.
> >
> > So ... spin it down after a few more minutes?
> >
> > -- hendrik
>
> No, only spin it down when the savings from the down cycle outweigh
> the power cost of spinup+spindown (I don't know whether spindown uses
> extra power, to "brake" the drive or anything).
>
> Say you have a drive that uses 1W/m (huge, but I'm being merciful to
> my math skills) while in usage, and requires 5W to spinup.  If you're
> going to  shut it down for 1m, you're looking at saving 1W and using
> 5, net use of 4, when leaving it spinning would only use 1.  However,
> if it's going to be inactive for 30 min, you're using 5 and saving 30,
> net savings of 25.
>
> --
> Ryan W Sims
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list


Ryan,
      You're certainly right that hard drives take more power to start
up but I think the arbitrary values you used don't quite represent
what really goes on. First though, let me help you with your units.
Watts, a unit measuring power, is defined as energy per time period. A
device that requires 5 watts and runs for 1 minute will use the same
amount of energy as a 10 watt device running for 30 seconds. I think
what you really meant to use was Joules, which measures energy. 1
joule per second is one watt. Now, as for the wattage values you
supplied.
     A quick question posed to google lead me to
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/storage/hddpower.html where you
can see a listing of power consumption for various hard drives (mostly
models that would be used in servers, but they will do) when idle,
under use, and most importantly at start up. Looking at the values, it
seems that saying a drive uses 12W while active, 8W while idle, and
30W at startup seem reasonable. I don't see anything indicating how
long a drive takes to spin up, but I would assume it's something
rather short. Let's say 5 seconds (which is probably longer than it
actually takes).
     So here is your hard drive, happily powered up but idle, using 8
watts of power. Since it is idle, you might be wondering if it should
be turned off to save power. Since it seems a drive uses 30 watts for
5 seconds when powering up, this is 30x5 or 150 joules. At 8 watts, it
will take 150/8 or 18.75 seconds to use 150 joules. Therefore, if this
hard drive is going to be idle for more than 18.75 seconds it makes
sense to shut it off. Of course real drives will almost certainly be
different, but the point is it only would seem to take a few seconds
of idle time before powering down makes sense. Also one could argue
that this doesn't take into account the effects of wear and tear when
stopping/starting drives, but I personally believe those effects are
negligible.
    Finally, an interesting thing about hard drives is that when they
are spinning down (at least when power has been unexpectedly cut off),
the motor that spins the platters is used as a generator, taking the
energy of the spinning drive to move the read/write heads to the
parked position, so there is no power cost associated with powering
down a drive.


Julian
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Linux becomes expensive ;)

[Crayon Shin Chan]

On Thursday 19 July 2007 01:28, Anno v. Heimburg wrote:

> I remember a rather old (mid-90s) study done by WD which concluded that
> a start-up poses wear on the HD equivalent to 30h of idling. I can't
> find it any more, and it's been ten years, so things might be different
> these days, but the point stands: A start-up comes with significant
> wear.

Years ago drives suffered from "stiction" (not sure whether modern drives 
have the same problem).


> IIRC, at some point, IBM even produced very high performance hard disks
> for the mainframe market that would run for years, but were only
> guaranteed to survive two spin-ups.
>
> Anno.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list