Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon on Lenovo X61t, anyone?

Discussion in 'Lenovo (IBM)' started by keith11, Oct 7, 2007.

  1. schmolch

    schmolch Scribbler - Standard Member

    Messages:
    193
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    @keith:

    17W is 3W more than necessary (on my X60T) with max brightness.

    Check for these things, from easy to hard (and also from saves a'lot to saves a'little)

    1.) cpu frequency scaling. most likely working out of the box, you want to set it to "ondemand", not "userspace" (manual) or "performance" (always max). there should be a panel-applet available that lets you do this.

    commands mentioned below need to be run as root or with sudo in ubuntu.

    2.) wlan power management: probably not working OOTB. the command "iwconfig" shows you information about your card and various settings.
    If one line says "Power Management: off" then you have to set it yourself with "iwpriv eth0 set_power 7" (assuming eth0 is your wlan device. 7 is battery-mode, 1-5 are manual timeout settings).

    3.) "Easy" Linux Distributions might run things you do not need because they want to cover as much ground as possible for as many people as possible.
    A simple way to see what is running is the command "top".
    Of course this requires some experience to know what a process actually is good for so you have to look it up or ask.

    4.) The most powerfull and insight providing command to optimize your battery-life is "powertop".
    It will only work completely on Intel Machines and with very recent Linux-Versions (Kernel 2.6.22 and up) because its developed by intel and requires a new kernel-feature called tickless.
    Among showing you how much time the cpu spends in the various frequencies and power-states (C0=active, C3=sleep) it shows you every process which is waking the cpu from sleep and how often it does so every second.
    For example on my optimized X60T i have about 30-40 wake-up calls each second (most from the wlan), on a not optimized machine this might be many hundreds.

    5.) this one is probably not relevant for anybody here but just to mention it, if you want to go one step further you can use customized kernels that include various patches/enhancements for power-savings.

    dont forget though, 1.) is most significant, 5.) is least.
     
  2. g2tl

    g2tl Scribbler - Standard Member

    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    17W is almost (sometimes more than) twice what I get in my mobility-centered setting. o_O
     
  3. schmolch

    schmolch Scribbler - Standard Member

    Messages:
    193
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    No it´s not, plz pay attention to the part about max brightness and Wlan enabled.
     
  4. Earl Jr.

    Earl Jr. I pity the fool

    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    Does the fingerprint scanner work 'out of the box' as well? My x61 is on its way, and I am thinking about installing ubuntu on a partition.
     
  5. g2tl

    g2tl Scribbler - Standard Member

    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Haha, what do you mean "no it's not?"
    His number is "17" and mine is around 8-10.
    17 is clearly around twice--and sometimes even more than twice what I get.

    Please pay attention to the part about comparing numbers, regardless of the settings :D

    Oh, besides, Keith stated 17 being the absolute minimum anyway :D

    Of course, this is all rubbish if you weren't commenting on my statement. :p
     
  6. pibach

    pibach Scribbler - Standard Member

    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    g2tl, you seem to be the only one who gets the X61t below the 10 Watt margin. ln "normal" use my SXGA+ x61t does consume never less than 14 Watt.
     
  7. g2tl

    g2tl Scribbler - Standard Member

    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    hmm... weird.
    Did you set your hdd to spindown after a short period of time?
    I set mine to spindown after a minute. And since I'm doing a lot of reading more than anything else, I'd think the turbo memory would be used more frequently than the hdd, which would really help the battery life.
    But then, when I was watching a full screen video clip, second lowest brightness with headphones, I got about .1 less than 15. So mine does seem to be consuming less.
    Who knows? Maybe all these patches have fixed the turbo memory mechanism/algorithm/etc., that it actually works the way it's supposed to work. (If it helps, I have 75 processes running right now, and usually around 70)
     
  8. pibach

    pibach Scribbler - Standard Member

    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    yes, I did set to spindown but it has no effect. Even with all superfluos Vista services off (Superfetch, Indexing, Readyboost, Offline Folders...) it is somehow accessing the HDD every now and then within a minute and it never spins down and sleeps. Could you get you HDD to sleep? This would explain the power difference.
    However, turbo memory should not have any effect if you have enough main memory. Extensive test of ct magazine (last week) have shown there is zero gain neither of Turbo Memory nor of hybrid HDD regarding performance or battery consumption. On slow processors (e.g. ULV Sysems) it was even decreasing these values (but they never got the HDD to sleep, so this might be an explanation).
    But still, back to thread topic, Linux seems to eat up 3-4 Watts or approx. 20% respectively more than Vista - what a bummer.
     
  9. g2tl

    g2tl Scribbler - Standard Member

    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    My hdd sleeps frequently. The hdd has enough noise for me to notice when it stops spinning. I even have all those services turned on, including the system restore, but excluding the offline folders. I also set the pagefile to 0MB as I have 3GB of RAM.

    Regarding the Turbo Memory, Anandtech's last/latest test shows that there's a hope for TM regarding the battery life. And this was before all these patches/updates from both MS and Intel.

    Did you try locking your cpu at 800MHz? I set both the min and max cpu clock to 0%.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 18, 2015
  10. pibach

    pibach Scribbler - Standard Member

    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Thanks for the link to Anandtech, quite interesting. I still thinking what the reason is. If you switch HDD caching on (for write!) and HDD is allways spinning, the only possible difference is if you reboot (which I rarely do) and the RAM content is reloaded while the Flash is still there. Otherwise there should not be a difference of RAM caching versus TurboMemory except Vista implementation faults (which might be quite likely?) So there seems to be some background services that bypass the write cache and access the HDD? Is it possible to redirect this to a SD card flash? Or does anybody else got the HDD to sleep without turbo memory?

    Regarding throttling CPU, I tried but cannot see a significant difference if my load is that low. But as soon as I start scrolling for example it is painfully slow and therefore I think having the CPU at dynamic stepping is preferable in general.
     

Share This Page