Is Puppy Green?

Message

Aitch · #46 Post by **Aitch** » Sun 15 Mar 2009, 00:06

aarf wrote:sustainability!
there is enough geothermal energy in this planet to last so far into the future that earthlings will have long left for "greener" pastures in another galaxy before it is exhausted, even if it is used in the most inefficient manner available..

Gosh!

And there was me thinking that a lot of this 'global warming' malarky was because it has taken thousands of years of accumulated sunshine to produce the 'fossil fuels' we burn in no time, thus releasing thousands of solar hours worth of heat to;
keep warm
make electricity
run furnaces
cook food
drive vehicles
create work
extend daylight
get entertained
play with technology i.e. PCs/phones/gameconsoles/TVs/ipods
etc

and now we have the geothermal energy to release, too

so no probs, then, Lobster - aarf's got it sussed

[tongue firmly in cheek]

Aitch

VK6FUN · #47 Post by **VK6FUN** » Sun 15 Mar 2009, 05:37

If you really want to see for yourself just how greedy the penguin is, place two identical laptops side-by-side, running on batteries.

One running linux, one running the operating system you hate so much.

Be sure they are both doing the same thing. For many of you this will be impossible because your linux system will be incapable of driving some of your hardware.

Notice which one dies first, and by how long.

Report your results here, if you are not too embarrassed.

When you must conserve every last joule linux is a joke.

cheers

73deVK6FUN
Pete

#48 Post by **Pizzasgood** » Sun 15 Mar 2009, 06:07

FYI, Linux itself does support slowing down the processor when it's idling. Unfortunately, last I checked Puppy doesn't have that enabled by default. But it does work in Puppy. I tested it last summer. I don't remember quite what I did, but it involved echoing some stuff into /proc. There are instructions on the forum. You should track them down and try comparing it then.

(Note: I'm not talking about simple throttling - that is easy, but not as slick. With throttleing, you manually tell the kernel how fast to run the processor by echoing a number to /proc/acpi/processor/CPU0/throttling. What I'm talking about above will automatically slow down when idling, and attempt to quickly speed back up when being used.

And to preempt any smart-asciis in the audience, yeah, I know. Fat lot of good it does when you have too dig up obscure commands to enable it. Somebody with nothing better to do should write up (or track down) a gui for it.

VK6FUN · #49 Post by **VK6FUN** » Sun 15 Mar 2009, 06:32

Note that I have read this

http://johnmeister.com/tmcp.pdf

but my results are VERY different.

I suspect that default MS Windows install was able to drive more hardware like wifi and bluetooth.

apples with apples problem.

or is it just straight-out bs?

73deVK6FUN
Pete

panzerpuppy · #50 Post by **panzerpuppy** » Sun 15 Mar 2009, 06:55

ttuuxxx wrote:I would keep the small version of seamonkey I made, since its smaller than firefox, or opera.

I'd add Opera to the Green Puppy and set it as a default browser.
Opera uses a lot less CPU (and RAM) than SeaMonkey when scrolling and displaying pages.

Web pages with Flash videos are another problem.The videos should be downloaded and played back with MPlayer/VLC/GXine.

I'd enable Xorg 2D/3D/OpenGL acceleration out of the box.2D video acceleration saves a lot of energy.

#51 Post by **Pizzasgood** » Sun 15 Mar 2009, 06:57

I suspect that default MS Windows install was able to drive more hardware like wifi and bluetooth.

No excuse. If it is capable of running them fine. But it should not actually be running them. If they are enabled and broadcasting when unneeded, then Windows is wasting power.

VK6FUN · #52 Post by **VK6FUN** » Sun 15 Mar 2009, 07:17

a typical smart-arse answer and a cop-out.

You are saying that an operating system's inability to operate hardware is a feature.

cheers
73deVK6FUN
Pete

panzerpuppy · #53 Post by **panzerpuppy** » Sun 15 Mar 2009, 07:25

Pizzasgood wrote:Just look at computers. Every time the processing speed increases, software adds enough bloat to compensate.

Increase the energy available, and we will find a use for it.

Game developers will start to use inefficient languages (i.e. BASIC) to program their latest virtual-reality first person %^$#@ simulators.

CPU power will never be enough.

Take GTA IV as an example - even your shiny new high-end quad core with a monster videocard can't handle the shoddily programmed GTA IV.
But wait - the game flies on a console that's 20 times less powerful than your monster PC.
Now that's what I call progress

panzerpuppy · #54 Post by **panzerpuppy** » Sun 15 Mar 2009, 07:55

Pizzasgood wrote:FYI, Linux itself does support slowing down the processor when it's idling. Unfortunately, last I checked Puppy doesn't have that enabled by default. But it does work in Puppy. I tested it last summer. I don't remember quite what I did, but it involved echoing some stuff into /proc. There are instructions on the forum. You should track them down and try comparing it then.

(Note: I'm not talking about simple throttling - that is easy, but not as slick. With throttleing, you manually tell the kernel how fast to run the processor by echoing a number to /proc/acpi/processor/CPU0/throttling. What I'm talking about above will automatically slow down when idling, and attempt to quickly speed back up when being used.

And to preempt any smart-asciis in the audience, yeah, I know. Fat lot of good it does when you have too dig up obscure commands to enable it. Somebody with nothing better to do should write up (or track down) a gui for it.

It would be great to enable this by default in a future version of Puppy.

VK6FUN · #55 Post by **VK6FUN** » Sun 15 Mar 2009, 08:09

maybe developers could have a look here

http://www.lesswatts.org/index.php

for some good tips.

powertop is an eye-opener on intel processors.

cheers
73deVK6FUN
Pete

Aitch · #56 Post by **Aitch** » Sun 15 Mar 2009, 15:24

Hmm

& I suspect what PG was referring to was probably an implementation of the OnDemand Governor feature in the kernel

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/ ... -paper.pdf

see sample attached

It seems to me that the whole ethos of linux, [or any *nix] only calling modules as needed must make it more efficient?
[Don't know how a Mac OSX or SunOS (Solaris?) system might compare?]

Interesting topic, no doubt there'll be more changes....

Maybe this will assist? - A benchmarking/testing suite used for comparisons

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=28706

Aitch

DMcCunney · #57 Post by **DMcCunney** » Sun 15 Mar 2009, 16:02

Aitch wrote:It seems to me that the whole ethos of linux, [or any *nix] only calling modules as needed must make it more efficient?
[Don't know how a Mac OSX or SunOS (Solaris?) system might compare?]

Analogous, since they share a similar design philosophy. Mac OS/X is a BSD variant. So is the original SunOS (no surprise, since Sun co-founder Bill Joy was the chief architect of BSD when he was a grad student at UC Berkeley.) Solaris is the result of an AT&T sponsored effort to create an OS that merged the System V and BSD flavors.

Lots of things are started on bootup by *nix boxes as daemons, just like lots of services are run on Windows.

On laptops, power efficiency is more than just CPU usage. The docs for my Fujitsu Lifebook, for example, recommend things like reducing screen brightness to the lowest comfortable usage level (since screen display is a major power use), and disconnecting things like PCM-CIA cards when not in use because they are powered by the system. (I have a USB 2.0 PCM-CIA card in the Lifebook.)

Linux may be able to do better on default power saving features than it does, but I doubt it can auto-adjust screen brightness to comfortable levels or get users to disconnect power using hardware when they aren't using it...

______
Dennis

rjbrewer · #58 Post by **rjbrewer** » Sun 15 Mar 2009, 22:55

My laptop draws 18 watts at desktop and 34 watts when
watching a streaming video.

Decreasing screen brightness from max to minimum saves
2.34 watts of power. If I have the laptop running 24/7 365
days a year, that will save me $2.05 a year.

Having pcmcia cards plugged in seems to be negligible,
unless devices are attached and running.

DMcCunney · #59 Post by **DMcCunney** » Sun 15 Mar 2009, 23:29

rjbrewer wrote:My laptop draws 18 watts at desktop and 34 watts when
watching a streaming video.

Decreasing screen brightness from max to minimum saves
2.34 watts of power. If I have the laptop running 24/7 365
days a year, that will save me $2.05 a year.

The point of Fujitsu's commentary for my machine wasn't cost savings when plugged into an outlet - it was battery life savings when not plugged in.

Obvious, the cost saving method is "Don't watch streaming video..."

______
Dennis

rjbrewer · #60 Post by **rjbrewer** » Mon 16 Mar 2009, 00:14

My laptop drops from 800mhz to 650 mhz and minimum
screen brightness when running from battery.

ecomoney · #61 Post by **ecomoney** » Mon 16 Mar 2009, 00:36

So....what is there we can do to make puppy even "greener"....we must make a considerable carbon footprint with all of our computers. I notice puppy doesnt have a screensaver/screen blanker. Can we turn off hard disks when not in use? or is this simply a bios feature on some computers? I notice modern computers must have higher wattage power supplies..does this make them consume more energy? Does running old kit use less power?

rjbrewer · #62 Post by **rjbrewer** » Mon 16 Mar 2009, 01:28

The screen goes dark on Puppy after 10 mins. of inactivity.
This makes a big difference in power use with a crt monitor,
and you can feel how much cooler the monitor is.
Running a graphical screensaver saves no power.

My p2 pc uses 90 watts; more than half goes to the crt.
It has a 125 watt power supply.
An average new Vista box uses about twice as much power
and needs a supply twice as large; even though they have
lcd monitors and are touted as being energy efficient.

I guess it comes down to how you use Puppy. When using a
laptop that's only using 20 to 50 watts, that's "Green" in my
opinion.

rjbrewer · #63 Post by **rjbrewer** » Mon 16 Mar 2009, 01:28

oops double post

disciple · #64 Post by **disciple** » Mon 16 Mar 2009, 06:33

I notice puppy doesnt have a screensaver/screen blanker.

?
There are screensavers. By default the screen is just blanked after a few minutes... but screensaving and blanking don't even save any power anyway.
If you want to turn the screen off, put

Code: Select all

	Option      "OffTime" "3"

in the serverlayout section of xorg.conf.[/quote]

ecomoney · #65 Post by **ecomoney** » Mon 16 Mar 2009, 13:32

Thanks for that, I used it to find this page.

Im just thinking...for the cybercafe project Im currently working on, the people who work their say they have a problem, not only with power consumption, but also with people wondering away and leaving their screens on while logged into their email and such.

I understand puppy has a template xorg.conf file that it uses to create the various xorg.conf files for particular graphics setups. If that file were modified with some of the settings from the link above then that wold help their electricity bill, their (rather careless) clients privacy (to some small degree), and do their bit for the planet.

Would someone with a bit more knowledge than me explain if this can be done, and if so how to do it?

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Is Puppy Green?

Re: Is Puppy Green?