Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:04:36 +0000 From: "Joao Barros" <joao.barros@gmail.com> To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Power-Mgt (Was: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/cpufreq est.c ) Message-ID: <70e8236f0803180804v692c2abs7eb296317cb84ed1@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1031.1205848495@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <200803180840.18275.jhb@freebsd.org> <1031.1205848495@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > > >To avoid lots of code duplication I think we would need to provide some sort > >of "idle" device support in new-bus. Possibly something like this: > > We need different levels of "active" also, EnergyStar requires machines > to reduce ethernet speed from GE to 100M when idle, (this saves approx > 2W, 1W in either end of the cable). It's common practice to force connection speeds on both switches and NICs in datacenter environments. When I find a machine with a nic connected at 10mbit Half Duplex I already know it's forced on the switch and someone forgot to setup the server correctly. What I'm saying is, if something is about to automagically happen, people should be aware of it. *Big neon lights* :-) -- Joao Barros
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?70e8236f0803180804v692c2abs7eb296317cb84ed1>