suspend status

[Yann Berthier]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Tobias Roth wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 08:56:06PM -0600, Eric Anderson wrote:
> > 
> > Refigure your math - if 100% cpu means 3hrs 18 minutes of runtime left, 
> > then that about 200 minutes of runtime.  So 1% equals 2 minutes of 
> > runtime roughly.  So, you suspend - and wait up 90 minutes later.  If it 
> > would have been running like normal, it would eat up 1% per 2 minutes, 
> > so about 45% of your battery - but it didn't, it only ate up 20%.  So 
> > ath that rate, it was using less than half the power as when in 
> > non-suspend mode.
> 
> how long would the same laptop/battery survive when suspended from
> windows? i always had in mind that a suspended laptop is supposed to
> live for more than a day, which clearly is not the case in your example.
> 
> you often hear comparisons here about how much less battery windows uses
> when compared to FreeBSD (or rather, how much better windows battery
> saving techniques are). detailed comparisons of bsd <-> linux <-> windows
> with good guesses of why the discrepancies are there would help.
> 
> i am just trying to say that battery saving in suspend probably IS bad
> in FreeBSD (as compared to the possible optimum, as windows shows it).
> it's not just bad math in the above example.

   Thanks, that was my point, though not clearly exposed i'm afraid (the
   2 AM post excuse ;) I can do whatever maths you want, it leads me to
   the following conclusion that my laptop can't stay unplugged more
   than a few hours even suspended. It used to be an order of magnitude
   better with FreeBSD and ACPI, so as a user i tend to consider this a
   regression, even if it was with another laptop (toshiba)

      - yann