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 pu
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 di
[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 conn
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
> w
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 adjust
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 interrup
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 t
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 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
> >> significa
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
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
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 y
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 fo
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
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 gue
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
