Hello, On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 03:56:01PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > FWIW, I think "desktop" and "server" are misleading descriptions here. It's > my impression that there are lots of servers in production that would also > benefit from power savings as a result of tickless.
I sincerely doubt it. Current servers with dualcore opterons or quadcore xeons pull between, 200-400W idle. Add more FB-dimms, and you get more 5W each. A tickless kernel, wich might reduce the consumption by best-case 1W, is just a joke in this case. OTOH of course, if you have a laptop consuming 10-15W, and get it down by 1W, I'd love to enable tickless, thats some 10-20 minutes of battery time. Having servers downclock the CPU when idle is a good idea, especially if you have active/failover systems where the second box just waits for the first one to fail. But this is cpufreq, not tickless or HZ. > Perhaps "standard" and > "performance" would be better descriptors here? Which being what? Given the nature of the settings, powersave and standard could be better names. Best regards Frederik Schüler -- ENOSIG
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
