On 04/12/2014 12:05 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >>>> Cryogenic is the result of my Master's Thesis, completed at the Technical >>>> University >>>> of Munich under the supervision of Christian Grothoff. You can find more >>>> information >>>> about Cryogenic at https://gnunet.org/cryogenic >>> >>> Do you have any measurements how much power it actually saves? >> >> Yes, it depends on the device, but we have demonstrated power >> savings for two different types of devices using two different >> measurement setups performed by two independent groups. Some >> of the measurements are available on the website, the second >> set should become available "soon" (but we can already say that >> for the scenario we measured, the savings are in the same range >> as before). > > The video I seen.... AFAICT the savings are in <10% range?
For the scenario we scripted, yes. But note that we only allowed 50% of the packets transmitted to be delayed (a bit). If you were to increase the allowed delay or allowed a larger fraction of packets to be delayed, you should see larger savings. > I seen demo on UDP packets... delayed TCP socket write is probably > easy, but would API allow delayed TCP connect? Yes. > Hmm, but the API needs redoing, anyway, fcntl()? Depends --- while I like the idea, I did not hear enough to be certain that having this feature embedded in such a non-modular way was already the consensus (and I do not see a reasonable way to change the API this way while maintaining the modularity of the current code).
0x48426C7E.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
