Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft's Sleep Proxy Lowers PC Energy Use

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the you-are-getting-very-sleepy dept.

Microsoft 163

alphadogg writes "Microsoft researchers have slashed desktop energy use with a sleep proxy system that maintains a PC's network presence even when it is turned off or put into standby mode. Microsoft has deployed the sleep proxy system to more than 50 active users in the Building 99 research facility in Redmond, Wash., according to the Microsoft Research Web site and a paper that will be presented at the Usenix technical conference in Boston later this month. ... Sleep proxies allow machines to be turned off while keeping them connected to the network, waking the machines when a user or IT administrator attempts to access them remotely."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Making zombies even more zombie like! (1, Funny)

oztiks (921504) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556056)

Yay!! Microsoft!!

Give them a break (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32556074)

Microsoft has come up with some good technologies. This sounds like one of them.

Re:Give them a break (5, Interesting)

XMode (252740) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556138)

Reinventing something that's been available for years is not 'coming up with good technologies'.

Now what they SHOULD have done is just cache the MAC of the PC in AD along with the rest of the object (It might already be there as part of the auth stuff) and then mod the remote access client to try and ping first, no reply? Send a Wake on Lan packet.

Re:Give them a break (2, Funny)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556208)

hey thats great.. Its as simple as modding every single remote access application that currently exists and will ever exist.. such as firefox.. thats so simple... you are brilliant.

Re:Give them a break (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556506)

Its as simple as modding every single remote access application that currently exists and will ever exist

No, it doesn't. It's possible to implement XMode's trick at the API level.

Re:Give them a break (2, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556704)

So every user has to install a driver? Even Joe Plumber trying to access your invoice history web server?

You just dont seem to get it.

Re:Give them a break (0, Flamebait)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#32557166)

Ever heard of Windows Update? You are the on who doesn't seem to get it.

Re:Give them a break (1)

Klinky (636952) | more than 4 years ago | (#32557238)

Won't people have to update or install this "sleep proxy"?

Re:Give them a break (1)

besalope (1186101) | more than 4 years ago | (#32557438)

So every user has to install a driver? Even Joe Plumber trying to access your invoice history web server?

You just dont seem to get it.

In a corporate environment, the driver would be pushed out through WSUS.

MS invented here JUST LIKE THEY ALWAYS DO (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556366)

It was patented by Apple 3 YEARS AGO. It has been in existence even longer. And yet, ppl like you claims that MS invented this (or a number of other things). That is the problem. MS invents little, steals a great deal yet, their minions beg the world (as cowards) to accept them as being honest inventors. MS is the China of the software world.

Re:MS invented here JUST LIKE THEY ALWAYS DO (5, Informative)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556400)

It's also OpenSource: Note: see mDNSResponder source code at www.macosforge.org, which includes a full implementation of the DNS-SD/mDNS Sleep Proxy Service, available under the Apache 2.0 Open Source license. AND written up as a specification http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-11 [ietf.org]

Meaning if Linux or *BSD wanted to they too could also have it too. In fact, I'm really hoping that they do because I'd love to not have to send a WOL to my HTPC or Server when I want it to download something. I can just have my sheevaplug wget an address and have it wake itself.

Re:MS invented here JUST LIKE THEY ALWAYS DO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32556654)

This proxy appears to be much broader in scope than mDNSResponder. Please read the paper (http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/131390/SleeplessNoLonger_USENIX_2010.pdf) before passing judgement.

Re:MS invented here JUST LIKE THEY ALWAYS DO (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556634)

but sir, it does not exist unless it exists on Windows to many lemmings out there. I'd demo'ed multi-threading systems to a bunch of Windows developers years ago and they were unimpressed. But, 3+ years later, when Windows got a poor implementation of multi-threading, they were all excited and some even attempted to show me how cool it was. 3D, OOP, etc, etc are the same.

So, if it is not on Windows or by Microsoft, it doesn't exist to these people. Sad but true.

LoB

Re:MS invented here JUST LIKE THEY ALWAYS DO (1)

SuperDre (982372) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556890)

WOW, you talk about MS stealing a great deal..... Apple is even worse at that, they patent a lot of stuff other people have invented long before them, and yet still they get it patented (me wonders how much money they have slipped into the patentoffice).. but then again Applefanboys never see past Steve Jobs brown little star.....

Re:MS invented here JUST LIKE THEY ALWAYS DO (2, Informative)

kjart (941720) | more than 4 years ago | (#32557140)

It's a good thing you're here to call out bullshit on Slashdot! I mean, Microsoft contending it invented all this in such a _cowardly_ way...oh wait, FTFA:

Microsoft's research group isn’t the first to work on a sleep proxy – or even the only one presenting sleep proxy research at Usenix – but Microsoft contends that most previous work has evaluated sleep proxies only in small testbeds or simulations.

Phew, so Microsoft Research is presenting a research paper on this subject. Crisis averted.

Re:MS invented here JUST LIKE THEY ALWAYS DO (3, Funny)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 4 years ago | (#32557560)

Hey buddy, you and your "facts" can go fuck yourselves. I came into this discussion for some microsoft I mean M$ hate and I'll be damned if I'm going to let a few sensible facts and reasoned posts get in my way. Someone make a chairs joke, stat! Also, can we somehow work 640K into this? Lets see...640K seconds of sleep should be enough for anyone...umm....640K computers will only allow themselves...hmm...wait, I'll get it..

Re:MS invented here JUST LIKE THEY ALWAYS DO (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#32557406)

First of all, if what you say is true lets see the citation. Second of all, this is just sad. Talk about foaming at the mouth fanboyism. Is this really what /. has become? Where it doesn't matter if a company does something good (lowering energy means less greenhouse gas, less waste) unless it has Jobs or RMS? Can't we all....just get along?

Re:Give them a break (1)

horatio (127595) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556542)

Microsoft came up with this? You're one of those comedian ACs.

Wake On LAN [wikipedia.org]

Re:Give them a break (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32556860)

wake on lan scares the shit out of me. that it'll be all networking devices is kinda scary. The thing we have to realise is that microsoft users are so used to having z3r0 security, that most won't ever talk to you if ever brought up this topic. They walk off whistling. Sad

Re:Making zombies even more zombie like! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32556252)

Hm. And as the post just above you points out, Macs have it too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_Proxy_Service [wikipedia.org]

Now all my machines are Linux, save for one Windows, but I think Macs qualify as "on the news" and useful.

At least in this case.

But yes, useful is why I go w/ Linux.

Wake on Lan? (5, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556062)

This is something new? Isn't this basically just wake on lan with an external box? Meaning that rather than having a part of the computer powered on in case the packet to wake up comes through, they're doing it with an external box. I'm a bit curious as to why this justifies any particular coverage.

Re:Wake on Lan? (4, Informative)

Stupendoussteve (891822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556122)

I guess they're claiming it's smart wake on lan. WoL requres sending a specific packet to the machine. Most people don't know to do this (an admin should, but otherwise...) and the network resources will be unavailable in the meantime. This system keeps the resources available and wakes the computer if they are actually needed. It does not rely on someone being smart enough to wake up the system themselves.

Macs have the option to Wake on Demand [apple.com] which requires the use of an Airport base station but seems to follow the same basic concept.

Re:Wake on Lan? (1)

ekran (79740) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556134)

So, basically it's a wake on lan, but that which works everytime some moron is doing a portscan or ssh-breakin attempt on your system? Why would such a system even have a off mode?

Re:Wake on Lan? (5, Informative)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556284)

So, basically it's a wake on lan, but that which works everytime some moron is doing a portscan or ssh-breakin attempt on your system? Why would such a system even have a off mode?

..so basically, no its not like wake on demand.

"SleepNotifier alerts SleepServer just before the client goes to sleep, and SleepServer ensures that all incoming traffic meant for the client comes to the proxy instead," Microsoft writes in another article titled "Trying to cure PC insomnia." "The proxy server's role is to monitor traffic and respond accordingly. For some requests, it responds on behalf of the client so the client can continue sleeping, and others it ignores. Some traffic, such as a user access request, causes the SleepServer proxy to awaken the client and present the user with apparently seamless remote access."

So basically we have a system that uses Wake On Lan to wake the remote machine automatically for user requests, but also avoids waking it for stupid shit like pings.

This is, in effect, what other researchers are trying to solve in a decent manner. Wake On Lan requires the waker to know a thing or two about the sleeping system (for example, that its sleeping) and simple frontend devices that have solved this in the past wake the system for everything and are also permanent proxies (proxying even when the system ISNT sleeping, for example)

Re:Wake on Lan? (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556906)

So basically we have a system that uses Wake On Lan to wake the remote machine automatically for user requests, but also avoids waking it for stupid shit like pings.

I think it goes further, because it allows the PC to push at least part of its logic onto the proxy (like a VM).

Re:Wake on Lan? (2, Informative)

rinoid (451982) | more than 4 years ago | (#32557194)

This is the way it works on OSX ... The machine appears available as a network resource yet remains asleep until yo attempt to utilize one of its hosted network services, afterwhich it wakes up. Does not wake for ping.

Re:Wake on Lan? (4, Funny)

cmacb (547347) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556246)

You mean they copied Apple?

Huh. First time for everything.

No. It's RDP=WOL (1)

codecore (395864) | more than 4 years ago | (#32557376)

No. I think it's a WOL service that is invoked by a RDP proxy. You try to remote to your sleeping machine. A proxy machine hears the request, knows that the machine is asleep, and sends the WOL signal to it. There may potentially be a RDP session migration also. I want this for my WHS, so I can wake my sleeping desktop from work. Perhaps a mesh.live,com applet could do this.

Re:Wake on Lan? (4, Interesting)

v1 (525388) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556370)

Macs have the option to Wake on Demand [apple.com] which requires the use of an Airport base station but seems to follow the same basic concept.

Macs actually implement the Wake On LAN [wikipedia.org] standard feature. (sometimes referred to as WOMP, or Wake On Magic Packet) This relies on the computer's ethernet hardware remaining awake while the computer sleeps, and any computer on the LAN can send a special UDP packet containing its ethernet MAC (Machine Address Code, unrelated to MACintosh) to trigger the computer to wake up. The only Apple-specific part of this feature is that Apple extended it to wireless use, keeping wifi hardware also active and listening for the magic packet so computers could be woke up wirelessly. Come to think of it thought, WOMP over wireless does require an Airport base station and Mac ethernet adapters - Apple extended the WOMP specs (in an open way) but I think are the only ones presently implementing it?

Looks like Microsoft yet again attempts to take credit for "inventing" something that we've all been using for years. This time it wasn't even ripped off from Apple, it's been in use on all manner of PCs for some time now. This is just MS's first specific support in their OS?

I see a comment immediately below, "it'd be silly to set up a 2nd machine running 24/7 so that I could turn mine off a few hours a day"..... Actually, that's exactly how you wake up machines on different networks such as waking up a work machine from home. Unless your server is asleep too I don't see this being an issue? Remote into it, use it to WOMP your workstation, and then connect to it? Even if you don't have a server, surely keeping one machine awake to provide access to many other machines (easily tens to hundreds) is hardly a hardship.

Re:Wake on Lan? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556610)

Even if you're a home user with just one PC, there are plenty of cheap routers that can send WOL packets from their admin interface, as long as you enable the admin panel to be served to the WAN (which I wouldn't do - mine doesn't even use HTTPS).
Or if you have a Tomato firmware, you can just SSH in and send it from there/redirect traffic and send from your current PC.

Both of them can be easily automated.

Re:Wake on Lan? (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556684)

Thats great until you want users, who use the services hosted on the sleeping machine, to be able to use those services.

Yeah, its great that an admin can wake a machine. Big deal. Been doing that for years...

Re:Wake on Lan? (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556770)

As you say, big deal. If you want users to do it, you need an user interface that provides them with a way to do it (like the one you have, but with fewer options). A big button on a web page with "wake my computer up" would do after they've logged in.

Re:Wake on Lan? (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556808)

Thats great until you want users, who use the services hosted on the sleeping machine, to be able to use those services.

Yeah, its great that an admin can wake a machine. Big deal. Been doing that for years...

Then surely it must have occurred to you that the service that those users want to use could be made smart enough to send a WOL packet to the sleeping machine, wait a few seconds and then try again. MythTV has been doing this for years [mythtv.org] .

Re:Wake on Lan? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32556702)

It's Media Access Control. When you attempt to sound smart, at least know the acronyms you're clarifying.

Re:Wake on Lan? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32556980)

Looks like Microsoft yet again attempts to take credit for "inventing" something that we've all been using for years.

If the Apple people here could calm down a bit and actually read the paper (at least RTFA), they would see that...

a) Actually MS is claiming no such thing, quite the opposite, they are actively acknowledging that others are working on sleep proxy research, and explaining what they have done different. This is published research, not marketing or fanboyism.

b) This is not just Wake on Lan. It's a smart automation of sleep/wake-on-lan functionality designed for enterprise network use. Waking hosts automatically (not by manual WOL command) if needed, but not unecessary. In a complex enterprise network environment with constant traffic complexity.

A short quote from the article:

"The proxy server's role is to monitor traffic and respond accordingly. For some requests, it responds on behalf of the client so the client can continue sleeping, and others it ignores. Some traffic, such as a user access request, causes the SleepServer proxy to awaken the client and present the user with apparently seamless remote access."

Turn in your geek card (2, Insightful)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#32557040)

MAC stands for Media Access Control [wikipedia.org] .

"Machine Address Code" my ass...

Re:Wake on Lan? (1)

angryargus (559948) | more than 4 years ago | (#32557096)

WoL doesn't have to a specific packet. On Windows you have a choice between a magic packet (which is special), or just allowing the system to wake on any ARP or IP packet that's sent to the system's IP address. What was added in Windows 7 [microsoft.com] was a way for NICs to respond to ARP, ping, NDP while the system is in low power so the system doesn't wake for these. Seems like MSFT research should have factored this into their, um, "research".

The other thing they added was that waking on ARP/IP has historically been designed around using a sequence of bits and a mask as a filter to decide which frames should wake the system. This approach was changed so that more generic concepts like "TCP SYN" can be used to match packets. The difference is that you need multiple filters to handle TCP frames that use different extension lengths, while the latter approach only needs one.

Re:Wake on Lan? (4, Insightful)

jridley (9305) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556146)

It probably is, but for instance I can't use WOL because it requires a packet that can't propagate through a router. I've thought in the past about setting up a machine on my subnet that I could poke via HTTP or whatever and make it send the wake packet to my PC, and anyone else could use it too. But since I'm probably the only person on my floor of the building that gives a crap about power consumption, it'd be silly to set up a 2nd machine running 24/7 so that I could turn mine off a few hours a day.

Re:Wake on Lan? (4, Informative)

Cley Faye (1123605) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556210)

It probably is, but for instance I can't use WOL because it requires a packet that can't propagate through a router.

There is the possibility of having a smart router that allow WOL packets; some of them have a "act as a WOL proxy" option built-in, for examples.

Re:Wake on Lan? (2, Informative)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556218)

For my home network, I've got it setup so that my web server (which I can access remotely) has a php web page which I can use to send a wake-on-lan signal to my desktop PC. It also opens up the remote desktop port on my router to my current IP.

Re:Wake on Lan? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556536)

I would recommend setting up that RDP to tunnel through SSH or SSL, in order to avoid MITM attacks.

Re:Wake on Lan? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32556256)

Wake on LAN is a local protocol because it has to be sent as a broadcast packet if the router doesn't know the MAC address of the target network card. If you can configure static ARP table entries, you can combine that with port forwarding and use unicast WoL even over the internet. Besides, many home routers have WoL functionality. The problem with plain WoL is that it isn't built into the protocols, it doesn't maintain the presence of the server on the network and it doesn't keep the connection state on the server.

Re:Wake on Lan? (2, Insightful)

caluml (551744) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556306)

it'd be silly to set up a 2nd machine running 24/7 so that I could turn mine off a few hours a day.

Get an HP Thin Client, or similar. Leave that running, it'd draw 8 watts, I think. Then you could SSH to it, and send the WOL packet to your big, beefy 400W PSU box.

Re:Wake on Lan? (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556712)

Will a single one work for 20 boxes, and allow thousands of users to wake up your machines as needed?

Re:Wake on Lan? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556738)

Yes, with a little scripting. It would have one insurmountable drawback, though. It would not be integrated into Active Directory/Sharepoint/IIS etc in such a way as to lock you in even more firmly and require you to buy another $100,000 worth of licenses.

Re:Wake on Lan? (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556956)

A SheevaPlug [wikipedia.org] draws 2.3w idle no attached devices, 7.0w running at 100% CPU utilization.

You could literally hide it in your server rack (just don't lose it [bash.org] )

Re:Wake on Lan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32557262)

> You could literally hide it in your server rack (just don't lose it)

That's why those tiny PCs desperately need built-in speakers (or at least a beeper) ;-)

a packet that can't propagate (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556372)

It can if your network team allows it.

Re:Wake on Lan? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32556518)

... it'd be silly to set up a 2nd machine running 24/7 so that I could turn mine off a few hours a day.

FTFPDF:

3.3.3 Network-Based Sleep Proxies
This approach was proposed in [15], its feasibility re-
cently given careful study by [29].
How it works: This approach relies on a separate ma-
chine acting as a sleep proxy for the sleeping machine.
The sleep proxy detects when a client goes to sleep. It
then modies Ethernet routing (Sec. 4.3.1) to ensure that
all packets destined for the sleeping machine are deliv-
ered to the sleep proxy instead. The proxy examines the
packets, and wakes up the sleeping client when needed,
by sending a Wake-On-LAN (WOL) [43] packet.
Pros: Very little hardware support is required from the
client machine - the client NIC only needs to support
WOL. As the sleep proxy runs on a separate, general
purpose computer, it has great exibility in handling in-
coming trafc for the sleeping machine. The sleep proxy
can do complex, conditional packet parsing and can even
wake the sleeping machine based on non-network events
such as requests by system administrators, users entering
the building (with support from building access systems),
etc. This design also scales well (Sec. 7.5.2).
Cons: This design requires deployment of a sleep proxy
on a separate machine (generally one per subnet sup-
ported).
In most variations a client-side application must
be installed as well.
We have chosen this approach as it is both very easy to
deploy and requires minimal changes to user machines.

You just described Microsoft's plan. If only you had developed your idea fully, you could have patented the process first, and Microsoft would be your b****!

Re:Wake on Lan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32556580)

It can. You only have to redirect in your router some UDP port to the broadcast address, and send the router an UDP packet to that port with the WOL payload.
The WOL packet admits any prefix before it, so you can encapsulate it into an UDP packet, or any other for that matter.
There are even websites to send them if you can't: http://www.wakeonlan.me/ (even allows you to schedule it!)

Wake on BIOS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32556932)

A lot of BIOSes have the capacity to set a time and date to turn off and on the computer.

Re:Wake on Lan? (1)

garrettg84 (1826802) | more than 4 years ago | (#32557034)

Get a router that is compatible with DD-WRT. This feature is built in.

Re:Wake on Lan? (0, Redundant)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556242)

Because Apple did this years ago with their Airport Express routers, it allows the computer to sleep while offering a service on the network such as file sharing or ssh, the base station detects the incoming request and wakes the computer from sleep.

It's time for more innovation from Microsoft.

Re:Wake on Lan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32556322)

Except that Apple's airport express routers are a maze of non-standard baloney that doesn't play nice with non-Apple networking gear and causes all kinds of headaches every time some "clever" feature doesn't Just Work(tm) and you have to actually do some debugging. I've started refusing to help anyone who has a home network with an Airport device of any kind on it. It's just too much trouble.

Apple. Making it easy to make easy things hard.

Re:Wake on Lan? (1)

rinoid (451982) | more than 4 years ago | (#32557240)

Examples of this so called "maze of non-standard baloney" or you get called troll.

AFIK all the variants of airport base stations have been to spec or working draft in the case of 802.11 N.

I've worked with many of them on a campus and with a wide variety of devices with no mystery debugging. Then again, I am not one of those sysadmins or netadmins who make it easy to make things hard.

Re:Wake on Lan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32556406)

If MS had developed it, it would have been their first true invention for them. As it is, it is just another stolen idea, with taking credit for it. Hopefully, Apple sues them, and forces them to retract their papers. After all, it is just more false academia from them.

Re:Wake on Lan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32556920)

So, does this use less power than my ARM desktop running Ubuntu? Didn't think so.

Re:Wake on Lan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32557318)

Shot!!! :)

Re:Wake on Lan? (1)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 4 years ago | (#32557116)

This is something new?

Why didn't you RTFA?

They aren't saying that the sleep/wake aspect of this is new. Their paper is not about invention, but rather about evaluation. They say their's is the first reasonably large scale evaluation of the energy savings from this kind of thing in a decent sized production environment.

MacBooks, et al (1, Insightful)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556068)

Hmm, now who else has had such a system?

This is news? (4, Informative)

bushing (20804) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556072)

This sounds awfully familiar... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_Proxy_Service [wikipedia.org]

Re:This is news? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556120)

FTFA:

Microsoft's research group isn’t the first to work on a sleep proxy – or even the only one presenting sleep proxy research at Usenix – but Microsoft contends that most previous work has evaluated sleep proxies only in small testbeds or simulations.

So apparently even Microsoft admit they are not the first.

Re:This is news? (1)

PatPending (953482) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556304)

Compare (emphasis added):

Microsoft's research group isn't the first to work on a sleep proxy -- or even the only one presenting sleep proxy research at Usenix -- but Microsoft contends that most previous work has evaluated sleep proxies only in small testbeds or simulations.

vs.

Microsoft has deployed the sleep proxy system to more than 50 active users in the Building 99 research facility in Redmond, Wash.,

So the prior art was with "small" testbeds or simulations. And now MS claims "more than 50 active users."

Maybe it's just me but the latter is still "small" given the number of "active users" in a university or Fortune 1000 company.

Re:This is news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32556690)

The irony is that it shouldn't be necessary to wake hosts on a 50-host network. Anything that matters should be stored on a central server; local hard disks should just be caches in that kind of environment. This particular case is an example of Microsoft solving problems which they created in the first place.

Re:This is news? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32557300)

> Maybe it's just me but the latter is still "small" given the number of
> "active users" in a university or Fortune 1000 company.

How many of these universities or Fortune 1000 companies have published studies of the effect of this technology on energy savings in their networks?

Re:This is news? (1)

AnonymousX (1632759) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556330)

I'm sure MS will be granted a patent on it anyway.

what a breakthrough for fear based computing (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32556130)

plus, it helps to know that one is ALWAYS connectdead at fuddles.con(stant 'supervision').

back in the quickly (at the speed of right?) changing 'real' world;

the corepirate nazi illuminati is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their platform now. they do pull A LOT of major strings.

never a better time for all of us to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need not to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(

boeing, boeing, gone.

wake me up before you go go (0, Offtopic)

cosmas_c (1079035) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556148)

nothing important here

You FaIl It (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32556154)

to downlo4d 7he [goat.cx]

So they broke it, and made it theirs. (1, Informative)

Thruen (753567) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556156)

My Macs have been able to do this for some time now, and not just in "small testbeds or simulations," so what's new? Oh, I know! Microsoft is going to take an existing technology, that works rather well in my experience, and they're going to turn it into a bloated software package that costs more than the hardware you run it on, but never actually works right without the use of additional third party hardware and software, and then it'll get praised by mindless Windows jockies claiming that Apple's version was "too simple" and only good for people who don't understand how to run Windows properly.
Wait... what?

Re:So they broke it, and made it theirs. (2, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556230)

Syndrome identified:

Any feature even remotely similar, but found on Apple products, means that Macs have been doing it 'for some time now' even if what the Mac is doing is just the crap built into the bios of every motherboard made for the last decade, and doesnt solve any of the real problems that this new solution is solving.

Re:So they broke it, and made it theirs. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32556346)

Another syndrome identified:

replying without knowing the full story. Or even thinking about it.

Wake-on-lan is indeed nothing new, but Apple did it differently. They combined it with Multicast DNS (Bonjour) and placed it in the ROUTER. This means that it's the router that traps a request for your computer, and send a WOL first. There's no 'wakeup' button to press anywhere, it work automatically. Your PC might support WOL too, but are you using it ? How do you wake it up ?

And by the way, Apple also implemented if for wireless devices (WMM) where WOL doesn't work.

Unfortunately, since Apple is not making any routers that you can use in your companies network, it only work on a home network if you have an Apple Airport Express or Extreme. Or if you have a Mac on the same subnet that is using Internet Sharing. So it doesn't work in a company where the biggest savings might be done.

Re:So they broke it, and made it theirs. (1, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556742)

This means that it's the router that traps a request for your computer, and send a WOL first.

So then, it doesnt solve the problem?

Is that router going to wake the machine for pings? Really? Thats gonna save energy... not. Sure, block all pings then? Yeah.. then you can't ping the machine...

You, sir, are exhibiting the syndrome precisely. You are imagining that the Apple "solution" solves the problem, but it doesnt even come close.

The apple "solution" just ignores the problem, essentially its Wake On Lan. Big Fucking Deal. Apple has a wireless Wake On Demand. Nobody Fucking Cares because It Doesnt Solve The Problem.

Re:So they broke it, and made it theirs. (1)

kc8apf (89233) | more than 4 years ago | (#32557270)

Perhaps you should actually read up on the technology (link are already in other comments) and realize that the sleep proxy service handles some requests without waking the machine. For something like a ping, it doesn't wake the machine, but instead the proxy responds to the ping directly. Same for service advertisements. It only wakes the machine when the proxy can't handle the request on the machine's behalf.

So yeah, it does solve the problem. Now you've proven that not only are you unable to perform basic research, but that you ignore the facts presented and continue claim something entirely refuted by the facts.

Re:So they broke it, and made it theirs. (3, Informative)

Alan Shutko (5101) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556516)

Actually, in this case, Macs have been doing it since Snow Leopard was released, with Airport base stations. The base station will act as a proxy for any Bonjour-advertised service. If the Mac is asleep, the Airport will continue to advertise the bonjour offers. If another machine tries to connect to one of those services, the router will see it and will send the WOL packet to the mac.

So this does satisfy the basic need. It looks like the MS solution goes a bit further to making it work in an enterprise environment. With Apple's Wake On Demand, you need to be using Apple router, while with MS's you can use anything. It also looks like it could span routers, which Apple's can't do (with the exception of Back to My Mac with MobileMe). MS's paper does mention Apple's sleep proxy in its section on prior work, though it doesn't go into details on the differences.

Re:So they broke it, and made it theirs. (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556774)

So this does satisfy the basic need.

It wakes the machine for everything, just like all the other existing solutions.

Re:So they broke it, and made it theirs. (1)

Trolan (42526) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556910)

Just wakes it for whatever services registered with the sleep proxy as important enough to wake the system. Hitting it with ICMP isn't important. Hitting it with SMB is.

Apple:Wake on Demand - all bonjour services (1)

drerwk (695572) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556926)

Not quite the same:Wake on Demand lets Snow Leopard sleep with one eye open
http://www.macworld.com/article/142468/2009/08/wake_on_demand.html [macworld.com]

You can do more than just wake up a system, you can maintain a proxy for all advertised services like file sharing and printing.

My Macs have been able to do this for some time... (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556238)

Interesting. Could we have a link, please?

Re:My Macs have been able to do this for some time (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556598)

In fact, the entire Apple implementation is open source and part of mDNSResponder, the source is here. [apple.com]

Now if only someone would port it to avahi so we could get it on Ubuntu and Debian...

Re:My Macs have been able to do this for some time (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556940)

In fact, the entire Apple implementation is open source and part of mDNSResponder, the source is here.

Now if only someone would port it to avahi so we could get it on Ubuntu and Debian...

now if only someone would port it to Windo... oh wait!

Re:My Macs have been able to do this for some time (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#32557350)

Evidently, it's already in the works [avahi.org] .

Re:My Macs have been able to do this for some time (4, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556740)

Interesting. Could we have a link, please?

Yes, as soon as the machine wakes up.

Misleading Headline (4, Funny)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556202)

I was expecting a sleep proxy for me so that I could stay up all night while the proxy wasted time sleeping.

Re:Misleading Headline (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556640)

With our new sleep proxy, you can sleep while you sleep!

Re:Misleading Headline (1)

arielCo (995647) | more than 4 years ago | (#32557112)

TFA describes the opposite and it's even better - to have the proxy answer requests while I sleep ;)

great for botnets (4, Interesting)

e**(i pi)-1 (462311) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556318)

Swell, botnets can even operate with computers which had been turned off.

its the 80's again (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556364)

Ok, not quite the 80's but haven't they heard of WOL or vPro? Since they were part of both you would think so...

Wow (1)

Karpe (1147) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556390)

That's innovation! [wikipedia.org]

I can see it now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32556442)

waking the machines when a user or IT administrator attempts to access it remotely

Cue disaster, take 11.

Basically W.O.L. using even more energy. (1)

aXi (6533) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556464)

Basically yet another device that uses energy, seeing as all newer pcs come with built-in wake on lan that cannort be disabled anymore. Just another gadget that uses energy, even if the computer is powered on ..

The interesting bit is ... (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556482)

... "and maintains .. network presence"

Although this needs some server software, it sounds like all the network connections stay alive while the PC client is (as near as dammit) powered off. That means no tedious having to restart all the IP connections, network shares and applications that would otherwise get disconnected or timed out. (It also means you keep the same IP address - guess?).

Apple Airport has had this for a while... (1)

macshome (818789) | more than 4 years ago | (#32556612)

Apple has had a sleep proxy built into their Airport devices since WWDC last year...

Linus dream? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32556768)

I remember Linus telling in the kernel mailing list how he would like to see the power management stuff improving to the point a box would power off automatically after a certain time, put the network card into sleep, and use it as a sort of "wakeup device" when someone from internet tries to ping the box.

Energy saving? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32556840)

Do the majority of users in an enterprise environment even shut off their computers?

I know that where I work, probably 97% of the users lock their machine, not shut them off. It's kind of annoying...

None of you understand how WOL works? (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#32557070)

I use WOL extensively. There are so, so many people here saying that this is an improvement because WOL will just wake up the machine for a ping or some other stupid crap. Look, it doesn't work that way. WOL doesn't mean wake up whenever we see network activity. It means wake up if we receive a WOL request. Basically, you need to send a specifically crafted package directed to that specific MAC. That's usually all you'll ever need. On the other hand, Sleep Proxy Server has been around for quite some time ... and it's Free Software ... where's the improvement here?

Allow smarter client power saving first. (1)

Klinky (636952) | more than 4 years ago | (#32557348)

While this & wake-on-LAN seem like novel ideas, I think it'd be better to focus on allowing smarter power management within the computer. For example, add-in 3D cards do not go to sleep when the monitor does, this consumes quite a bit of power. This is not as big of a problem in a business setting, but even onboard graphics are getting more advanced. CPUs can still improve as well. Better clock stepping, such as allowing the CPU to run @ 20% it's rated speed. CPU core power downs, where you shut off cores not in use & power-gating, so you're shutting off parts of active cores not in use. Once SSDs come in to use, they will also help as these can effectively be turned off when not in use as they have no spin-up time.

Ultimately, I think the goal should be better power scaling on-demand rather than completely shutting the computer off. Once the computer is off you have to get into funky schemes like this to get it back up and running. Even in sleep mode, the computer is still consuming 1W - 10W power. Imagine being able to let your computer just idle at 1W - 10W & then scale to 25W - 200W when you need to use it for work.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?