Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 10:20:48 +0100 From: Tobias Roth <roth@iam.unibe.ch> To: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: suspend status Message-ID: <20041211092048.GA15338@droopy.unibe.ch> In-Reply-To: <41BA61C6.9080903@centtech.com> References: <20041211014613.GK695@hsc.fr> <41BA61C6.9080903@centtech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 08:56:06PM -0600, Eric Anderson wrote: > > Refigure your math - if 100% cpu means 3hrs 18 minutes of runtime left, > then that about 200 minutes of runtime. So 1% equals 2 minutes of > runtime roughly. So, you suspend - and wait up 90 minutes later. If it > would have been running like normal, it would eat up 1% per 2 minutes, > so about 45% of your battery - but it didn't, it only ate up 20%. So > ath that rate, it was using less than half the power as when in > non-suspend mode. how long would the same laptop/battery survive when suspended from windows? i always had in mind that a suspended laptop is supposed to live for more than a day, which clearly is not the case in your example. you often hear comparisons here about how much less battery windows uses when compared to FreeBSD (or rather, how much better windows battery saving techniques are). detailed comparisons of bsd <-> linux <-> windows with good guesses of why the discrepancies are there would help. i am just trying to say that battery saving in suspend probably IS bad in FreeBSD (as compared to the possible optimum, as windows shows it). it's not just bad math in the above example. cheers, t.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041211092048.GA15338>