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!

Linux 3.15 Will Suspend & Resume Much Faster

Soulskill posted about 5 months ago | from the cutting-into-my-foot-tapping-time dept.

Open Source 117

An anonymous reader writes "The Linux 3.15 kernel now in its early life will be able to suspend and resume much faster than previous versions of the Linux kernel. A few days ago we saw ACPI and Power Management updates that enable asynchronous threads for more suspend and resume callbacks. Carrying out more async operations leads to reduced time for the system suspend and then resuming. According to one developer, it was about an 80% time savings within one of the phases. On Friday, work was merged that ensured the kernel is no longer blocked by waiting for ATA devices to resume. Multiple ATA devices can be woken up simultaneously, and any ATA commands for the device(s) will be queued until they have powered up. According to an 01.org blog post on the ATA/SCSI resume optimization patches, when tested on three Intel Linux systems the resume time was between 7x and 12x faster (not including the latest ACPI/PM S&R optimizations)."

cancel ×

117 comments

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

Caution (5, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about 5 months ago | (#46735713)

There's a reason why RAID controllers tend to wake up drives sequentially. The power load of waking up 20 hard drives at the same time can be tremendous compared to the load when they're all spinning and purring. So you don't do that.

So I hope that power draw is taken into account, and that there will be options to limit the number of devices woken up simultaneously.

Re:Caution (5, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 5 months ago | (#46735777)

Something tells me that machines with a heavily RAID-ed disk subsystem are not exactly your usual candidates for frequent power cycles.

Re:Caution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46735809)

You've never seen a datacenter where the UPS failed?

Re:Caution (2)

KiloByte (825081) | about 5 months ago | (#46735877)

If your UPS dies, a suspended machine is screwed just the same. There's rather little point in suspending a server: even ones that are off outside business hours are better off hibernating rather than suspending.

Re:Caution (1)

evilviper (135110) | about 5 months ago | (#46736293)

There's rather little point in suspending a server:

Those of us who do this stuff happen to disagree with you.

even ones that are off outside business hours are better off hibernating rather than suspending.

"Better off" HOW? Hibernation takes much, much longer on both ends, and the difference in power consumption between hibernate and suspend is nominal. When your cluster suddenly needs more power, you don't want to wait 10 minutes for POST, kernel booting, and copying quite a few GBytes from disk into RAM, when you can instead get up and running in a few seconds.

Re:Caution (1)

eneville (745111) | about 5 months ago | (#46739017)

When your cluster suddenly needs more power, you don't want to wait 10 minutes for POST, kernel booting, and copying quite a few GBytes from disk into RAM, when you can instead get up and running in a few seconds.

You may know ahead of time when your systems are most at work, say 0800-1800, so WOL at 0730, for exmple.

Re:Caution (1)

Nkwe (604125) | about 5 months ago | (#46738379)

If your UPS dies, a suspended machine is screwed just the same.

Not necessarily. Windows desktop machines can write out RAM to disk so that if power is lost during suspend, the machine can come back up to where it left off. It is basically a cross between suspend and hibernate. If power is maintained the machine comes up out of suspend almost instantly, if not it comes out of hibernate.

Re:Caution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46735909)

I would have thought you would replace your UPS if you noticed that it was failing consistently. Or maybe change data centres if their juice is so flakey that you notice your UPS is failing so regularly you need quick suspend and resume... Or do I understand nothing at all?

Re:Caution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46735961)

I think a lot.

What you think about becoming my boss?

Re:Caution (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 5 months ago | (#46735927)

Or a 1U server full of SSD drives, or from a decade ago full of laptop hard drives?

Re:Caution (0)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 5 months ago | (#46735971)

More rare: the times the UPS was more than a brown truck with a penchant for right turns.

Re:Caution (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46736023)

Consider that Linux runs on everything. It's not unlikely that there are plenty of clusters out there that suspends whole computers when the power is not needed. If they are also filled with HDDs, then that use case arises.

I think it's a valid point, even though it's not very common.

Re:Caution (2)

sjames (1099) | about 5 months ago | (#46737023)

No, but but that one time a year when it does, it will be important to power the drives in sequence, not all at once.

The parallel start can still help though. There is a period of time between the inrush where the platters are at about the right speed but not yet stable. That's the point where powering the next drive on would be OK.

Re:Caution (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about 5 months ago | (#46738367)

Also, consumer (and mass storage) grade 7200 rpm drives have significantly lower power surge than 15K drives.

Re:Caution (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46738453)

Something tells me that machines with a heavily RAID-ed disk subsystem are not exactly your usual candidates for frequent power cycles.

In my case - which you may dismiss as anecdotal - they are. We live in the countryside, and so power outages are common, especially during the summer. So we have a pair of UPSs backing up the servers (about 1½ hours capacity with all disks spinning). The servers are three Synology boxes, all with RAID - two are the two-bay type, one is a four-bay type, and all drive bays are occupied with 3TB and 4TB drives, totalling 14TB in RAID (raw 28TB). Another pair of smaller UPSs keep the networking gear going, and allow the PCs to shut down; the laptop obviously keeps running as it has a couple of hours on battery.

The power-up sequencing is very important. We don't want 4 drives per UPS powering up simultaneously on access.

FYI, this is a home system. We're probably not alone in having 4 drives in RAID on a home server.

Re:Caution (2)

RulerOf (975607) | about 5 months ago | (#46735821)

But what system with dozens of hard drives in it would be entering and exiting S3 constantly anyway?

You might do power saving on hypervisor hosts, but on a SAN? I can't think of a scenario where it makes a lot of sense... but perhaps I'm just lacking the proper imagination :P

On topic: I think this is awesome. I want to be able to suspend my machine and wake it up whenever I feel like it, with VMs shuffling around waiting for me to pick up a different tablet, or sit at a different desk. x86 has a lot of catching up to do. After all, I've gotten pretty used to putting a device "to sleep" and "waking it up" instantly. It'd be nice if my computer could do the same thing... even if it's only in spirit. Of course, an S3/4/5 is a much deeper sleep than my phone or tablet ever enters while it's powered on, AFAIK.

Re:Caution (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 5 months ago | (#46737191)

Uh.. x86 has been able to do this for over a decade now.. It's linux that's catching up. It's power management hasn't been that great.

Re:Caution (2)

arth1 (260657) | about 5 months ago | (#46737217)

But what system with dozens of hard drives in it would be entering and exiting S3 constantly anyway?

It doesn't have to be constantly. Once is enough.

And you don't even need dozens of hard drives. Workstations with RAID 10 aren't all that uncommon. Being able to not have all drives spin up all at the same time would be beneficial, especially as the power supply gets older - even after as little as a year of constant use, the ability to handle high loads can easily be half or less of what it was when new.

While a motherboard BIOS will take care of spinning up drives sequentially at boot, it won't help for suspend.
So yes, having the ability to limit how much can be woken up at a time by the kernel would be beneficial.

Re:Caution (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#46739145)

After all, I've gotten pretty used to putting a device "to sleep" and "waking it up" instantly.

This is a UI issue. Mobile devices can simply turn off the display before they've actually entered sleep mode. How would you know? Your PC could do the same thing, but there would be fans running and lights flashing, so you'd be aware that it was trying to trick you.

Re:Caution (5, Informative)

SpankiMonki (3493987) | about 5 months ago | (#46735859)

There's a reason why RAID controllers tend to wake up drives sequentially.

And the RAID controllers will continue to do just that. All this change does is allow the kernel to continue resuming without having to wait for the device to report that it's ready. Any commands sent to the device in the meantime are queued.

Re:Caution (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46736103)

Yes, and it matters a whole lot more to us power users with lots of data! Even with large 3TB+ hard drives, it can take lots of drives to fit all of our data. My motherboard has 6 SATA ports and I have an SATA controller with 4 extra ports. Waking up 10 drives at the same time is an extra 20A of load or so on the 12V rail. That requires a fairly solid, high quality/high current PSU (admittedly I do have that).

Re:Caution (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46736143)

If it's a hardware RAID controller then the kernel should "see" a single logical device it needs to wake up, and it can leave it to the controller firmware to wake up the drives in the correct order.

Re:Caution (3, Interesting)

sjames (1099) | about 5 months ago | (#46737065)

And if it's soft RAID or a ZFS pool?

Re:Caution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46737381)

Then the hardware will control wake up events before the BIOS is done passing control to the OS.

Re:Caution (1)

sjames (1099) | about 5 months ago | (#46737431)

But it doesn't.

Re:Caution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46738965)

What year is it?

Re:Caution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46739043)

If it's soft RAID then the MD driver will need to take care of it; ditto ZFS.

I would assume that the Linux kernel developers have considered some of these edge cases, although I haven't checked. Maybe the answer is "Then you can't use this new suspend/resume scheme yet", in which case you're no worse off than you are now.

Re:Caution (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 5 months ago | (#46737443)

The power load of waking up 20 hard drives at the same time can be tremendous compared to the load when they're all spinning and purring.

Spinning drives... how quaint!

so how fast is fast..? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46735805)

On my SandyBridge-era Thinkpad Edge, with:
- one 7200rpm Hitachi drive from ~ 2011 and
- one Intel SSD 525 from ~ 2013,
Debian Testing/Sid with kernel 3.13-1-amd64 wakes up from RAM sleep in 1s or so, thus extremely covenient so I never shutdown/hibernate.. how much more improvement can you get?..

Re:so how fast is fast..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46735977)

.. how much more improvement can you get?..

According to TFA, 7~12x improvement. Reading Is Fun(damental). [rif.org] Try it some time, you'll be glad you did!

Re:so how fast is fast..? (1)

elal1862 (129261) | about 5 months ago | (#46736073)

My antique Latitude D600 needs a whopping 5 seconds to wake up, which is waaaay too long </sarcasm>
So yeah... How much more improvement do you need?

Re:so how fast is fast..? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46736265)

That's too slow... osx takes a second or so. And the newest windows is trying to copy osx resume speed. Perhaps now, linux is copying windows resume.

Re:so how fast is fast..? (3, Interesting)

elal1862 (129261) | about 5 months ago | (#46736505)

Some perspective is needed here:
We're talking about almost-a-decade-old hardware running a current linux version. Yet it's still fast enough to resume within 5 seconds, boot in 45 seconds, start libreoffice in 4 seconds, IOW: still quite usable
My $200 says you can't run Mavericks on a (similar vintage!) PowerBook G4 with the same usability...

Re:so how fast is fast..? (1)

ButchDeLoria (2772751) | about 5 months ago | (#46737861)

Well no shit, Mavericks is for x86 only.

Re:so how fast is fast..? (2)

elal1862 (129261) | about 5 months ago | (#46738973)

Hey, it's not my problem that Apple dropped PPC support with Snow Leopard *smirk*

Re:so how fast is fast..? (1)

pathological liar (659969) | about 5 months ago | (#46736453)

I have an x230 that I put a Corsair SSD in. It's running Ubuntu 13.10, so I guess it's running a 3.11.something kernel. On resume I can see the kernel block for 10+s (by the timestamps in dmesg) waiting for my SSD to get its act together. Screen is on, lockscreen is displayed ... but I can't enter a password because the entire system is waiting on the disk.

It sounds like I will benefit from this.

Re:so how fast is fast..? (1)

BestNicksRTaken (582194) | about 5 months ago | (#46739247)

sounds more like you need a better disk or distro, my 5400rpm hdd resumes debian sid (3.13.7-1 but also 3.11 when it ran wheezy) in 1-2secs and i can type the password and get on with work instantly.

Re:so how fast is fast..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46736611)

My Thinkpad w500{5400rpm,p9600,8G,6M-L2}; Using Fedora 20{kernel 3.13.9} goes from suspend-to resume in less then 3 seconds.

Re:so how fast is fast..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46737089)

Hopefully you have some memory scrubbing going on If you work in a high altitude location.

Re:so how fast is fast..? (2)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 5 months ago | (#46737267)

Think embedded. A device in complete sleep state can be powered for eons on a battery. Waking, doing whatever it needs to do and then going back to sleep waiting for the next interrupt is critical to battery life. In the micro-controller world the difference in battery life of 2 seconds of wake-up time can mean the difference between swapping out your batteries in a day or in a year. I have not very fond memories of counting how many cycles various assembly instructions will take to ensure the CPU on small micro controllers isn't awake for more than a few microseconds to meet some power requirements. The prospect of running a small linux machine the same way is quite interesting.

Re:so how fast is fast..? (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 5 months ago | (#46737475)

how much more improvement can you get?..

Well, you could convince the sensors applet and the clock applet to wake up from suspend properly instead of randomly consuming all CPU cycles, preventing the gui from awakening.

Re:so how fast is fast..? (2)

Trogre (513942) | about 5 months ago | (#46738319)

A more useful metric, IMO, is how reliable the suspend/wakeup cycles are. For example, a particular Fedora 16 box I ran would suspend/resume with 100% reliability. That is, it would suspend every time you asked it to, and wake up every time you asked it to. Another Fedora 20 machine has 100% sleep and 0% wake. ie it goes to sleep and NEVER WAKES UP without a hard power cycle. Another machine had 100% sleep and about 75% wake, which is again utterly useless.

Re:so how fast is fast..? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#46739151)

My Ubuntu box has 100% reliable resume, but it only goes to sleep once or twice and then it refuses to go to sleep again. But I suspect that's just an Ubuntu problem :)

Re:so how fast is fast..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46739087)

Personally I've seen that Linux will spend most of it's time waking from sleep waiting to spin up my HDD.

When that HDD isn't mounted, it's so quick I don't even think about it anymore thanks to the SSD.

not fast (3, Insightful)

lgalindo (530228) | about 5 months ago | (#46735813)

will be happy if it does it right ...

Re:not fast (1)

elal1862 (129261) | about 5 months ago | (#46735967)

That largely depends on drivers, IOW: the willingness of hardware vendors to do things right.

Re:not fast (3, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 5 months ago | (#46736285)

And there lies the problem. Windows is very tolerant of badly-configured ACPI implimentations - it'll happily work even if half the configuration fields are wrong, as it simply ignores them and uses hard-coded suboptimal values. There's little incentive for OEMs to bother supporting any OS other than Windows, so typically once the firmware works for Windows it is considered good enough. All is well, until we stick linux on it - and linux then follows the ACPI specification correctly, and fails horribly.

Re:not fast (1)

distilate (1037896) | about 5 months ago | (#46737973)

Or just bricks the machine

Re:not fast (2)

YoopDaDum (1998474) | about 5 months ago | (#46738621)

The sloppiness in the PC ACPI world can also bite Windows too. You can find nice Asrock mini PCs based on laptop hardware. If you look at a Tom's hardware review of the Asrock VisionX 420, with a mobile core and mobile AMD GPU, you'll see that it consumes 28W at idle. This is crazy high for what's in effect a mobile laptop in small form factor box. One of the big reason is that the system ACPI says that PCIe ASPM (the low-power mode of PCIe) is not supported. Configuring laptop-mode on Linux and forcing ASPM results in idling at ~12.5W only, and a quieter box. Enabling ASPM in power saving mode alone saves ~8W, the rest is due to other suboptimal Windows defaults I guess.

So IMHO the "let's do the minimum and ship" to save a buck approach of PC vendors hurts Windows and linux both. On the Windows side you'll usually get something considered good enough for its product class (here power was not considered as relevant for an HTPC it seems) but likely not optimal. On Linux you will get a mess by default because as you say vendors can't be bothered with it. But with some work you can actually get something quite good.

never ending WMD on credit holycost ending? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46735837)

never again to resume? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk9mV8qBiEk never again we lament & promise ourselves & everyone...

It doesn't work at all. (2)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | about 5 months ago | (#46735875)

What's the point if suspend resume doesn't work at all?

Here's my SLEEP script, in which I am testing various kernels:

#!/bin/bash

logger "========== touch forcefsck ==========="
# if resume failed, then I want fsck (SSD disks, so it's just few seconds)
touch /forcefsck
/bin/sync
sleep 1

logger "hibernating"
# https://help.ubuntu.com/commun... [ubuntu.com]
# it says there to try hibernating using various different methods

### method: 1 kernel 3,13,0 - fail, (2/6 success rate)
#/usr/sbin/hibernate

### method: 2 kernel 3,13,0 - fail, (3/6 success rate)
#/usr/sbin/s2disk

### method: 3 kernel 3.13.0 - fail, (2/6 success rate)
#echo platform > /sys/power/disk
#echo disk > /sys/power/state

### method: 4 kernel 3.13.0 - (3/6 success rate)
### kernel 3.2.0 - 80% sukcesów 20% fail (over 80/100 success rate - currently in use)
### kernel 3.12-bpo - (0/1) success rate)
echo shutdown > /sys/power/disk
echo disk > /sys/power/state

sleep 5
logger "restart network"
## something screws networking after resume
/etc/init.d/networking restart
sleep 2

## also UPS connection is screwed (sometimes I need to disconnect and reconnect the USB cable)
sleep 5
/etc/init.d/nut-client stop
sleep 5
/etc/init.d/nut-server stop
sleep 5
/etc/init.d/nut-server start
sleep 5
/etc/init.d/nut-client start
sleep 5
# don't mess with clock /etc/init.d/ntp restart
logger "resume complete"

Besides, this is old news. Our new and better site beat slashdot: https://soylentnews.org/articl... [soylentnews.org] . The only working kernel was 2.6.29 with tuxonice [soylentnews.org]

Re:It doesn't work at all. (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 5 months ago | (#46735925)

I have had excellent results with suspend and hibernate on various laptops. I rant a lot about brokenness of OSS, but this is an area where Linux actually works really well today.

What kind of problems are you having?

Re:It doesn't work at all. (1)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | about 5 months ago | (#46735989)

It simply doesn't resume. HIbernation always works. You can see it on videos:

http://www.pg.gda.pl/~jkozicki... [pg.gda.pl]
The *.mov files are records from hibernation/suspend attempt. They have polish names, ignore that. You can see that it reboots again right at the end of resume, then boots into log-in screen

I think it is related to my hardware: dual Xeon E5-2687Wv2, 64 GB of RAM, motherboard SUPERMICRO MBD-X9DRI, GPU nvidia GTX 780 (only debian approved nonfree drivers, no blobs from nvidia.com)

Re:It doesn't work at all. (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about 5 months ago | (#46736041)

Sorry to hear about that. Probably a good idea to file a bug report at https://bugzilla.kernel.org/ [kernel.org] (if you didn't already).

Re:It doesn't work at all. (1)

SpankiMonki (3493987) | about 5 months ago | (#46736087)

What's the point if suspend resume doesn't work at all?

Besides, this is old news. Our new and better site beat slashdot: https://soylentnews.org/articl... [soylentnews.org]

Well, if you'd bothered to read TFA, you would have known that there was a merge last night that specifically benefits the resume process. While it may or may not help you specifically, it is definitely NOT old news. BTW, your "new and better site" makes no mention of this at the time of this writing.

Re:It doesn't work at all. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46737037)

Our new and better site beat slashdot

Your new site is so much better that you still read and post on Slashdot. From the looks of it, that site has next to zero users or discussions.

Re:It doesn't work at all. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46737693)

He didn't say that his site was more popular than Slashdot, he said that it was better.

Well frankly, better is not all that hard to do, since Slashdot is not the tech-focused place that it used to be in the olden days. And the editors have never done any actual checking or editing here anyway, so the bar for competitors isn't set very high.

A competitor that doesn't use Javascript at all would actually be very welcome.

I'd rather have "easier to debug" (2)

Cley Faye (1123605) | about 5 months ago | (#46735905)

My main issue with suspend with my laptop is that it never wake up. Now it can be faster at not waking up, wow.
I'd rather have a way to generate log and find the issue relatively easily.

Coupled with systemd and LinuxBios (2)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 5 months ago | (#46735915)

There are quite a few things that slow booting systems. Systemd is _supposed_ to take a lot of the slow, sequential starup out of the actual system daemons: it will be a while before it's really working well for critical, production systems, but that can take minutes off of startup time in a large environment. Note, also, that much of its "startup advantage" is illusory. Daemons are told to start up, and systemd keeps them starting up, but they're not necessarily available for quite some time after startup. This especially applies to databases and bulky Java applications.

The kernel startup is another big factor. Scanning for, assessing, and activating drivers for all the potentially available hardware is a slow and painful process because the upstream specifications are poorly documented, and even violated by many vendors. Many of them are legacy drivers and could in theory be discarded in most production kernels, but doing so can be quite tricky and hard to test for enough strange configuration cases.

The third big software factor is the BIOS. "coreboot", formerly "LinuxBIOS", is blazingly fast compared to most proprietary BIOS's. It has made some inroads but is still not available for any commercial systems I can find. So no matter what is done in the other two factors, the BIOS is still a limiting factor of suspend and restore delays.

Re:Coupled with systemd and LinuxBios (2)

whoever57 (658626) | about 5 months ago | (#46736015)

Systemd is _supposed_ to take a lot of the slow, sequential starup out of the actual system daemons:

So is OpenRC.

Re:Coupled with systemd and LinuxBios (3, Informative)

evilviper (135110) | about 5 months ago | (#46736257)

The third big software factor is the BIOS. "coreboot", formerly "LinuxBIOS", is blazingly fast compared to most proprietary BIOS's. It has made some inroads but is still not available for any commercial systems I can find. So no matter what is done in the other two factors, the BIOS is still a limiting factor of suspend and restore delays.

POST has to be performed by the BIOS when restoring from hibernation, but NOT suspend. So no, the BIOS is NOT a significant "limiting factor of suspend and [resume]" operations.

Re:Coupled with systemd and LinuxBios (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 5 months ago | (#46736295)

That is a good point. It's still a limitation for restarts.

Re:Coupled with systemd and LinuxBios (1)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about 5 months ago | (#46736343)

Modern UEFI BIOS implementations, even when booted to CSM mode, tend to spend an extremely short amount of time doing work pre-boot. The BIOS slowness was mostly due to heaps of unnecessary memory tests and diagnostics anyway. Once those stop happening, there's not much time spent getting ready for booting at all. Windows 7 on my Windows 8-shipped laptop with an SSD comes up to a ready-to-go desktop in less than 10 seconds from power on. The BIOS speed obstacle is largely solved on new machines.

Re:Coupled with systemd and LinuxBios (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 5 months ago | (#46736633)

I'm glad it's improved for your laptop: I agree that it's gotten better especially for laptops and SSD drives. I also agree that UEFI is helping. Unfortunately, I've tended to deal with servers, where it is _not_ a solved problem.

Who cares? (2)

Antonovich (1354565) | about 5 months ago | (#46735981)

Tell me when they can make my laptop last for more than an hour without mains and I'll be happy. I need to upgrade but battery life under Linux is so woeful I can't justify spending the ridiculous prices they are asking these days. To get a similar laptop to the 3 yr old one I have (at least in terms of size, weight, memory and disk) I would have to spend the same amount today as back then. Where is Moore's law again? Even though I can't afford one, I was looking at the Dell XPS 13 but for a couple of hundred more (for similar specs) I could get a macbook air and have *double* the battery life with osx. I would even consider it if I could run Linux on it and get similar battery life to osx... But alas, I read it sucks just as much as on all other machines.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46736221)

My 4-year old Thinkpad T410s gets over 2 hrs on an old batter with only 23 Whr of usable capacity. I have an even older Thinkpad with a replacement battery and it gets over 5 hrs on battery.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46736329)

It can depend on the table. There have been some major problems with power features an the like in Linux because the tables will contain inaccurate information but Microsoft sometimes has their software ignore the table (and uses a hotfix with the correct info) if they know the information is bad. Linux doesn't always have the same ability.

Re:Who cares? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46736263)

Jesus christ, I hope you're sterile.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46736843)

Sterile, and wholly unpalatable to any and all school boards and academic department heads.

Re:Who cares? (1)

plasticsquirrel (637166) | about 5 months ago | (#46736623)

You know, an idle kernel doesn't use much of your battery life. Bulky programs that crunch and munch on the CPU do. Saying, "Linux this" and "OS X that" doesn't make sense unless you know that it boils down to the kernel and kernel drivers. Have you run powertop to examine exactly which processes and drivers are responsible for draining your battery? Have you followed the recommendations given by powertop?

Finally, have you considered the possibility that your battery might be crap, and that a higher capacity battery that works properly may be the solution, rather than abandoning your entire operating system, or abandoning the entire computer?

Re:Who cares? (1)

Hymer (856453) | about 5 months ago | (#46738759)

Systemd: the PulseAudio of init systems

Is this a good thing or a bad thing ?

Re:Who cares? (1)

Antonovich (1354565) | about 5 months ago | (#46738857)

I tried powertop a few years ago but never had much success, though that was probably v1. I'll give it another try, thanks for the heads up.

A friend dropped the laptop about a year ago (it was an "accident", though he was drunk...). It didn't seem to make a difference for the first 8-9 mths but it weakened the lid/screen joint and with 12 mths of opening/closing has started to degrade seriously. I could spend many hours to try and patch it up but I've never had much success with anything more complicated than building/rebuilding basic desktop machines (stuff with wood is a different story). It's also now 3 yrs old, and with the time spent to fix it and expense in getting a better battery, I was thinking it was better to simply upgrade. With Moore's law supposedly operating, I was expecting to get something considerably better for the same price, or considerably cheaper for the "same" specs. If I am going to fork out top dollar (or rather euros), then I at least want something with great battery life, hence my whinging...

In terms of the OS, abandoning Linux (or even Ubuntu) is not something I'm seriously contemplating. I've worked professionally and personally with Windows and Linux pretty much equally over the last decade. At this stage in my life, my goal is to spend as little time on solving OS and OS-application level problems as possible. Been there, done that and it's not particularly inspiring any more. I have found I spend considerably less time maintaining Linux boxen (laptops, desktops or servers) for the same level of tidiness, security and performance. I want it to "just work", to know how it's "just working" and to spend the least amount of time achieving that. Ubuntu seemed to be the winner on this front for a long while (I've been on 12.04 for the last two years and it's what I've been installing everywhere for the last two years), though the shenanigans with upstart, mir, unity, etc. have made me wary. I'm a big kde fan when a UI is justified - and more importantly it's what I've been using for the last 10 years so I usually get shit done quicker for UI tweaks. I probably pay for that on several fronts - I regularly see various kde components munching cpu... If reasonable, I'll always try and do stuff on the CL or conf files but again, just because it's quicker and that means I know better what's going on.

Mac would mean learning an entirely new (*nix-based but still) system, which would be hard to justify in terms of time. They are also usually top shelf, so it means paying top dollar. I could probably justify the initial time and expense if it meant that in the long run I'd achieve my goal of spending less time for a performant and secure system. Unfortunately, it is going to be a long time before I can disassociate Apple products with Steve Jobs. I worked with handicapped people for several years and Jobs' parking spot manoeuvre may well have taken Apple products off my shopping list for good. Governments don't seem to be punishing companies or people for "doing evil" so I'm reduced to doing it with my wallet... (and yes, I know he's dead... but Apple could have stopped/punished him for being a "bad ambassador" for the brand).

Roaming within Europe is fast becoming free (included in the standard, 20-25€/mth unlimited everything subscriptions) for us here in France, so a Chromebook is becoming a viable option. I have a couple of personal dev servers (hurrah for 10€/mth physical servers!), and never really do proper dev on trains/planes/mountains anyway, so that part is fine - vim over ssh is virtually indistinguishable from local for my usage. The time needed for finding solutions for the 1-2 other desktop apps is now really the only remaining obstacle...

But anyway, if I solved all the problems myself there would be nothing to bitch about on /.! :-).

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46737917)

I know you said "laptop", but my netbook lasts 11+ sounds without mains.

If you want a full powered machine, then you need power to power it.

You can trade some of your power for power, and have more power.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46739347)

My 2 year old HP Pavilion with an i5 and spinning disk does 2.5 hours on its original battery.

Re:Who cares? (1)

WobbWobb (3614663) | about 5 months ago | (#46739381)

Long post, but very relevant.

I recently got a Thinkpad X240 with the large batterypack (total of 96wh), + an extra batterypack of 23wh, have had it for 2 months now. It's running ubuntu 13.10 and i'm getting about 10-12hours of active usage from it daily. I also always bring the extra batterypack in case of emergency.

Power consumption and batterylife with the large pack.

  • 2.8w (~34hours battery) - Lowest idle i've gotten it to (essentially nothing running, flight-mode activated so no radios or network, just logged in to gnome desktop, lowest brightness and leave it idle for 5minutes so it's doing nothing), but touch the touchpad or type anything and it drops by at least 4-6hours.
  • 4-4.5w (~21hours of battery) - Normal idle with wifi or 3g, screen at 46% and a few things running (a couple of terminals, ssh, webmail)
  • 5-8w (12-19hours of battery) - Normal usage when i don't really care, screen at 80%, wifi or 3g, lots of tabs, terminals, eclipse running in background..
  • 12-16w (6-8 hours of battery) - Abnormal usage (for me). I need to be compiling, watch FHD movies/flash-video or other crazy stuff to get it to these levels.

Worst case scenario is 6hours of battery with the large pack, switch to the secondary battery (which i can do without shutting down due to the internal laptop-batter) and have 2 more.
Best case, (4-4.5w) where it's usable for troubleshooting via ssh and stuff means I have 21hours, then switch to the extra pack and have 5 more.

Best case scenario means I lower brightness to pretty low (which is still readable on ips screen, though not comfortable for extended periods of time) and don't browse the web (leaves mail, chat, ssh, serial console, wifi or 3g/4g), it reports a battery-runtime between 19 and 22hours, though I usually get around 16-20 hours. It heavily depends on what i'm doing.

Bringing down cpu and gpu consumption is essential to make it last longer. Lots of stuff are insane resource-hogs. (Flash, javascript, other stupid stuff waking up every millisecond) so here's a few recommendations to get you started:

  • Suspend Tab - Firefox suspends the tabs so they're effectively not running after a set period (i use 30seconds), so i can have my set of 50tabs open, barely affecting cpu usage (and in turn, battery)
  • Flashblock - I hate flash, causes insane amounts of work for the cpu.
  • TLP - Powersavings for laptops, i've got everything set to maximum power savings all the time.

I really like this Lenovo!

Does it fix this issue? (2)

tdelaney (458893) | about 5 months ago | (#46736169)

https://github.com/OpenELEC/Op... [github.com]

Just determined in the last week to be due to async suspend/resume. From the various reports, oretty much all Intel hardware is affected.

Re:Does it fix this issue? (1)

tdelaney (458893) | about 5 months ago | (#46736179)

And of course, typo. "... pretty much".

I'll be happy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46736207)

... if it suspends and resumes without causing a kernel panic or crashes my video driver.

In other news... (5, Funny)

mugurel (1424497) | about 5 months ago | (#46736353)

Linus Torvalds is now said to suspend (but not resume) key linux developers up to 10 times faster.

Yeah yeah whatever (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46736647)

People don't have any real faith in Linux distros to properly suspend or resume in the first place, much less the speed at which they perform. That needs to be more in like with Windows or OS X before they can even begin to improve its speed.

Re:Yeah yeah whatever (1)

Teun (17872) | about 5 months ago | (#46737671)

I see you are mixing up the capabilities of Linux and the hardware.

Linux can handle it fine but some hardware manufacturers don't disclose their methods.

Re:Yeah yeah whatever (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46738079)

Linux can handle it fine but some hardware manufacturers don't disclose their methods.

That's right, keep passing the buck. It's someone else's fault. Keep repeating the lie often enough and people will believe it.

parallelism (3, Interesting)

lkcl (517947) | about 5 months ago | (#46736749)

.... um, it's 2014, the linux kernel is a critical part of the planet's internet infrastructure, is used in TVs, routers and phones all over the world, and you're *seriously* telling me that its internals aren't fully parallelised? i thought the linux kernel was supposed to be a leading example of modern operating system design and engineering.

true, but for years it didn't matter, power stayed (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about 5 months ago | (#46737187)

That's an interesting point. As a Linux user for many years, I never cared about boot or resume time. That's only mattered recently, as handheld devices have become quite useful. My servers and desktop stay powered on for years at a time, so I never cared how many seconds a reboot takes. Obviously a tablet is different. With a tablet, I do care, I want it to start up and shutdown quickly.

Re:parallelism (2)

epyT-R (613989) | about 5 months ago | (#46737263)

You're assuming a lot there. How would you know if osx or windows NT kernels are 'fully parallelized'? Have you seen the source?

Re:parallelism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46737367)

OS X kernel is indeed open source. Darwin is indeed 'fully parallelized' :)

Re:parallelism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46738929)

His message isn't "Why is Linux behind"

It's "Why isn't Linux leading by example"

Re:parallelism (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 5 months ago | (#46739691)

He's missing a "y" in there somewhere and describing what happens when problems reading optical media on such systems bring the things to a screeching halt :)

Re:parallelism (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46738057)

i thought the linux kernel was supposed to be a leading example of modern operating system design and engineering.

Nope, it isn't. That's what the Linux zealots have been telling us for the last 20 years, but the primary reason it's so widespread is because it's free. Period.

Re:parallelism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46738979)

Period.

That is where I realized that you are retarded.
If you want to end your sentence with three periods, just use ellipsis.

Re:parallelism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46738281)

What for? For what kind of applications a 'fully' parallel OS kernel would be advantageous? Would it be worth the overhead when you only have a few dozen cores?
Keep in mind Linux is not an academical kernel. They can't rewrite the whole thing just because that'd make a hypothetical computer with infinite cores run a synthetic benchmark faster.

Re:parallelism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46738805)

Defensive much?

> Would it be worth the overhead when you only have a few dozen cores?
If the option is between farm(1) or farm(12), yes.

> Keep in mind Linux is not an academical kernel.
Yo, stuff those acadamicals with their book learnin'.

Re:parallelism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46738501)

Well if you find something better to use than the Linux kernel, then by all means use it!

WTF slashdot (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46737351)

I'm in beta and I click classic which is on top it gets me to classic, hit the comments link and brings me back to beta and this is in a fucking loop. Stupid assholes, a website should be about the content itself not the bullshit eye candy which is taking space anyway. FUCKING RETARDS!!!

Re:WTF slashdot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46738745)

Add "?nobeta=1" to your URL. Of course, it disappears when you click another link on the site, so you have to keep adding it all the time.

Thank you Dice.

Re:WTF slashdot (3, Informative)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | about 5 months ago | (#46738807)

Just go to a new and better site: http://soylentnews.org/ [soylentnews.org]

Re:WTF slashdot (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 5 months ago | (#46739709)

Maybe if you get a username and log in you can be like me and never see beta.

Beat Windows? (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 5 months ago | (#46738311)

Sorry but the Suspend feature of Windows - called BSOD - is almost instantaneous.

Sad this is big news for Linux users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46739031)

I have to start by saying I am not against Linux in the least. I commend the people who devote so much time on these projects. But I think the end results still lack any proof that Linux can keep up with the likes of a Windows or OS X proprietary development program. Having worked with Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora and others. I think they have been polished over time but have yet to have the shine that really makes them worthy. Power management has always been hit or miss, and mostly miss in my experience. I hope some improvement has finally come to Linux as many more are now trying Linux on laptops and mobile devices. On a desktop it was no big deal to simply disable power modes. I finally gave up on Linux as its very nature of development is hampered by its open source. A perfect example is how Google has managed to take Linux mainstream with Chrome OS given that it finds way to support it better with predefined hardware and a controlled apps store.
Sometimes structure is a good thing and it brings out a better product.

My Linux laptop boots faster than Win7 resumes (1)

BestNicksRTaken (582194) | about 5 months ago | (#46739229)

My Clevo laptop is a Pentium-D and it boots Debian with encrypted root faster than Win7 can resume on my $$$ Core-i5 Lenovo.

So not sure we even need a faster suspend/resume, which is almost instant.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>