From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 28 15:02:44 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8492216A420 for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:02:44 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com) Received: from smtp805.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (smtp805.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.12.12.195]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 23A0443D64 for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:02:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com) Received: (qmail 53318 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2006 15:02:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO w2fzz0vc01.aah-go-on.com) (thomas.sparrevohn@btinternet.com@86.133.244.63 with plain) by smtp805.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Jan 2006 15:02:42 -0000 From: Thomas Sparrevohn To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:02:40 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <20060125201450.GE25397@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <43D9E1D2.6060207@rogers.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200601281502.41298.Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:02:44 -0000 On Friday 27 January 2006 18:30, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 4:03 AM -0500 1/27/06, Mike Jakubik wrote: > >Let's not forget, FreeBSD is really a server OS. Who in their right > >mind uses power saving features on a server? It sounds nice in > >theory, but doesn't work as well. > > Apparently your power and cooling bills are much lower than ours. > > We would very much love it if the computers will use only the > energy they need to get the job done. Yes, that means a big > bill when some simulation is running on a 100-node beowulf > cluster. But it also means we don't want to be paying the bill > to run that cluster at full-throttle when there's no work for > those CPU's to do. Good point - As much as I hate the marketing hype around the info-watt concepts - It would be nice to be able to track the consumption