5:02 a.m.
Due to ongoing problems with non-functioning hibernation (or rather
resuming) I decided to reduce the number of variables by removing the
proprietary Nvidia drivers. I did the following:
- Removed all Nvidia-related rpms (i.e. everything with Nvidia in the
name, i.e.:
kmod-nvidia-340xx-4.7.5-200.fc24.x86_64-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-340xx-libs-340.96-2.fc24.x86_64
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-340xx-340.96-2.fc24.x86_64
kmod-nvidia-340xx-4.7.3-200.fc24.x86_64-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-340xx-kmodsrc-340.96-2.fc24.x86_64
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-340xx-libs-340.96-2.fc24.i686
akmod-nvidia-340xx-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
kmod-nvidia-340xx-4.7.4-200.fc24.x86_64-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
kmod-nvidia-340xx-4.7.2-201.fc24.x86_64-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-kmodsrc-367.44-1.fc24.x86_64
- Deleted /etc/X11/*nvidia*
- Deleted the Nvidia blacklist file from /etc/modprobe.d
- Rebooted
I now have a VGA system (640x480). The Nouveau module is not loading at
boot. xrandr says "Failed to get size of gamma for output default".
So, two questions:
a) What am I forgetting?
b) Why is switching video drivers so fscking difficult?
poc
5:17 a.m.
Le 05/10/2016 12:02, Patrick O'Callaghan a écrit :
Due to ongoing problems with non-functioning hibernation (or rather
resuming) I decided to reduce the number of variables by removing the
proprietary Nvidia drivers. I did the following:
- Removed all Nvidia-related rpms (i.e. everything with Nvidia in the
name, i.e.:
kmod-nvidia-340xx-4.7.5-200.fc24.x86_64-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-340xx-libs-340.96-2.fc24.x86_64
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-340xx-340.96-2.fc24.x86_64
kmod-nvidia-340xx-4.7.3-200.fc24.x86_64-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-340xx-kmodsrc-340.96-2.fc24.x86_64
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-340xx-libs-340.96-2.fc24.i686
akmod-nvidia-340xx-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
kmod-nvidia-340xx-4.7.4-200.fc24.x86_64-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
kmod-nvidia-340xx-4.7.2-201.fc24.x86_64-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-kmodsrc-367.44-1.fc24.x86_64
- Deleted /etc/X11/*nvidia*
- Deleted the Nvidia blacklist file from /etc/modprobe.d
Delete:
/usr/lib/modprobe.d/blacklist-nouveau.conf
--
François Patte
UFR de mathématiques et informatique
Laboratoire CNRS MAP5, UMR 8145
Université Paris Descartes
45, rue des Saints Pères
F-75270 Paris Cedex 06
Tél. +33 (0)1 8394 5849
http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte
5:22 a.m.
Le 05/10/2016 12:17, François Patte a écrit :
Le 05/10/2016 12:02, Patrick O'Callaghan a écrit :
> Due to ongoing problems with non-functioning hibernation (or rather
> resuming) I decided to reduce the number of variables by removing the
> proprietary Nvidia drivers. I did the following:
>
> - Removed all Nvidia-related rpms (i.e. everything with Nvidia in the
> name, i.e.:
>
> kmod-nvidia-340xx-4.7.5-200.fc24.x86_64-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
> xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-340xx-libs-340.96-2.fc24.x86_64
> xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-340xx-340.96-2.fc24.x86_64
> kmod-nvidia-340xx-4.7.3-200.fc24.x86_64-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
> xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-340xx-kmodsrc-340.96-2.fc24.x86_64
> xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-340xx-libs-340.96-2.fc24.i686
> akmod-nvidia-340xx-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
> kmod-nvidia-340xx-4.7.4-200.fc24.x86_64-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
> kmod-nvidia-340xx-4.7.2-201.fc24.x86_64-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
> xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-kmodsrc-367.44-1.fc24.x86_64
>
> - Deleted /etc/X11/*nvidia*
> - Deleted the Nvidia blacklist file from /etc/modprobe.d
Delete:
/usr/lib/modprobe.d/blacklist-nouveau.conf
and delete rd.blacklist=nouveau from kernel command line in grub
--
François Patte
UFR de mathématiques et informatique
Laboratoire CNRS MAP5, UMR 8145
Université Paris Descartes
45, rue des Saints Pères
F-75270 Paris Cedex 06
Tél. +33 (0)1 8394 5849
http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte
5:28 a.m.
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 12:22 +0200, François Patte wrote:
Le 05/10/2016 12:17, François Patte a écrit :
>
> Le 05/10/2016 12:02, Patrick O'Callaghan a écrit :
> >
> > Due to ongoing problems with non-functioning hibernation (or rather
> > resuming) I decided to reduce the number of variables by removing the
> > proprietary Nvidia drivers. I did the following:
> >
> > - Removed all Nvidia-related rpms (i.e. everything with Nvidia in the
> > name, i.e.:
> >
> > kmod-nvidia-340xx-4.7.5-200.fc24.x86_64-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
> > xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-340xx-libs-340.96-2.fc24.x86_64
> > xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-340xx-340.96-2.fc24.x86_64
> > kmod-nvidia-340xx-4.7.3-200.fc24.x86_64-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
> > xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-340xx-kmodsrc-340.96-2.fc24.x86_64
> > xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-340xx-libs-340.96-2.fc24.i686
> > akmod-nvidia-340xx-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
> > kmod-nvidia-340xx-4.7.4-200.fc24.x86_64-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
> > kmod-nvidia-340xx-4.7.2-201.fc24.x86_64-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
> > xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-kmodsrc-367.44-1.fc24.x86_64
> >
> > - Deleted /etc/X11/*nvidia*
> > - Deleted the Nvidia blacklist file from /etc/modprobe.d
>
> Delete:
>
> /usr/lib/modprobe.d/blacklist-nouveau.conf
and delete rd.blacklist=nouveau from kernel command line in grub
There is no such entry. There are no blacklisted modules in grub.
poc
5:30 a.m.
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 12:22 +0200, François Patte wrote:
Le 05/10/2016 12:17, François Patte a écrit :
>
> Le 05/10/2016 12:02, Patrick O'Callaghan a écrit :
> >
> > Due to ongoing problems with non-functioning hibernation (or rather
> > resuming) I decided to reduce the number of variables by removing the
> > proprietary Nvidia drivers. I did the following:
> >
> > - Removed all Nvidia-related rpms (i.e. everything with Nvidia in the
> > name, i.e.:
> >
> > kmod-nvidia-340xx-4.7.5-200.fc24.x86_64-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
> > xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-340xx-libs-340.96-2.fc24.x86_64
> > xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-340xx-340.96-2.fc24.x86_64
> > kmod-nvidia-340xx-4.7.3-200.fc24.x86_64-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
> > xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-340xx-kmodsrc-340.96-2.fc24.x86_64
> > xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-340xx-libs-340.96-2.fc24.i686
> > akmod-nvidia-340xx-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
> > kmod-nvidia-340xx-4.7.4-200.fc24.x86_64-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
> > kmod-nvidia-340xx-4.7.2-201.fc24.x86_64-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
> > xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-kmodsrc-367.44-1.fc24.x86_64
> >
> > - Deleted /etc/X11/*nvidia*
> > - Deleted the Nvidia blacklist file from /etc/modprobe.d
>
> Delete:
>
> /usr/lib/modprobe.d/blacklist-nouveau.conf
and delete rd.blacklist=nouveau from kernel command line in grub
BTW, loading the nouveau module with modprobe works, once the system is
booted, i.e. it's not a problem with the module itself.
poc
5:39 a.m.
On Wed, 05 Oct 2016 11:30:42 +0100
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
BTW, loading the nouveau module with modprobe works, once the system
is
booted, i.e. it's not a problem with the module itself.
Maybe it is missing in the initrd? Perhaps try "dracut --force" after
manually loading it?
5:59 a.m.
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 06:39 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Wed, 05 Oct 2016 11:30:42 +0100
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> BTW, loading the nouveau module with modprobe works, once the system is
> booted, i.e. it's not a problem with the module itself.
Maybe it is missing in the initrd? Perhaps try "dracut --force" after
manually loading it?
Thanks, but François' suggestion worked.
poc
5:42 a.m.
Le 05/10/2016 12:23, Patrick O'Callaghan a écrit :
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 12:17 +0200, François Patte wrote:
>> - Deleted the Nvidia blacklist file from /etc/modprobe.d
>
> Delete:
>
> /usr/lib/modprobe.d/blacklist-nouveau.conf
As I said above, I already did that.
No! You deleted /etc/modprobe.d/nvidia.blacklist
(That's what you said...)
I suggest! */usr/lib/modprobe.d/blacklist-nouveau.conf*
--
François Patte
UFR de mathématiques et informatique
Laboratoire CNRS MAP5, UMR 8145
Université Paris Descartes
45, rue des Saints Pères
F-75270 Paris Cedex 06
Tél. +33 (0)1 8394 5849
http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte
5:58 a.m.
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 12:42 +0200, François Patte wrote:
Le 05/10/2016 12:23, Patrick O'Callaghan a écrit :
>
> On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 12:17 +0200, François Patte wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > - Deleted the Nvidia blacklist file from /etc/modprobe.d
> >
> > Delete:
> >
> > /usr/lib/modprobe.d/blacklist-nouveau.conf
>
> As I said above, I already did that.
No! You deleted /etc/modprobe.d/nvidia.blacklist
(That's what you said...)
I suggest! */usr/lib/modprobe.d/blacklist-nouveau.conf*
Actually it's nvidia-installer-disable-nouveau.conf but yes, that worked.
Many thanks.
It would be so much easier if the dnf script for uninstalling the
Nvidia driver just did this, since it's the installer that puts it
there in the first place. Obviously that's not a Fedora problem of
course.
poc
10:50 a.m.
FWIW, I have reverted from the NVIDIA driver to nouveau quite often by
simply doing
$ sudo dnf remove xorg-x11-drv-nvidia
which also removed most of the dependencies you have mentioned. After
that I could reboot into nouveau without any other alterations - just to
notice that nouveau is not my friend. So reverted to NVIDIA again in a
similar way:
$ sudo dnf install xorg-x11-drv-nvidia
(which, on reboot, was followed by some lenghty stop/start jobs from
akmod but worked in the end)
Am 05.10.2016 um 12:02 schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan:
Due to ongoing problems with non-functioning hibernation (or rather
resuming) I decided to reduce the number of variables by removing the
proprietary Nvidia drivers. I did the following:
- Removed all Nvidia-related rpms (i.e. everything with Nvidia in the
name, i.e.:
kmod-nvidia-340xx-4.7.5-200.fc24.x86_64-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-340xx-libs-340.96-2.fc24.x86_64
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-340xx-340.96-2.fc24.x86_64
kmod-nvidia-340xx-4.7.3-200.fc24.x86_64-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-340xx-kmodsrc-340.96-2.fc24.x86_64
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-340xx-libs-340.96-2.fc24.i686
akmod-nvidia-340xx-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
kmod-nvidia-340xx-4.7.4-200.fc24.x86_64-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
kmod-nvidia-340xx-4.7.2-201.fc24.x86_64-340.96-3.fc24.x86_64
xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-kmodsrc-367.44-1.fc24.x86_64
- Deleted /etc/X11/*nvidia*
- Deleted the Nvidia blacklist file from /etc/modprobe.d
- Rebooted
I now have a VGA system (640x480). The Nouveau module is not loading at
boot. xrandr says "Failed to get size of gamma for output default".
So, two questions:
a) What am I forgetting?
b) Why is switching video drivers so fscking difficult?
poc
11:40 a.m.
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 17:50 +0200, Klaus-Peter Schrage wrote:
FWIW, I have reverted from the NVIDIA driver to nouveau quite often
by
simply doing
$ sudo dnf remove xorg-x11-drv-nvidia
which also removed most of the dependencies you have mentioned. After
that I could reboot into nouveau without any other alterations - just to
notice that nouveau is not my friend. So reverted to NVIDIA again in a
similar way:
$ sudo dnf install xorg-x11-drv-nvidia
(which, on reboot, was followed by some lenghty stop/start jobs from
akmod but worked in the end)
That's what I would expect to work. Just perplexed that it didn't and I
had to go round manually cleaning stuff up.
I'll probably have to go back to the Nvidia drivers anyway as the
Nouveau one is noticeably worse in Steam, even at low settings.
poc
12:28 p.m.
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan <pocallaghan(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 17:50 +0200, Klaus-Peter Schrage wrote:
> FWIW, I have reverted from the NVIDIA driver to nouveau quite often by
> simply doing
> $ sudo dnf remove xorg-x11-drv-nvidia
> which also removed most of the dependencies you have mentioned. After
> that I could reboot into nouveau without any other alterations - just to
> notice that nouveau is not my friend. So reverted to NVIDIA again in a
> similar way:
> $ sudo dnf install xorg-x11-drv-nvidia
> (which, on reboot, was followed by some lenghty stop/start jobs from
> akmod but worked in the end)
That's what I would expect to work. Just perplexed that it didn't and I
had to go round manually cleaning stuff up.
I'll probably have to go back to the Nvidia drivers anyway as the
Nouveau one is noticeably worse in Steam, even at low settings.
poc
Unless NVidia releases their driver to open source, I do not think we will
get any reprieve from this problem.
I am wondering why they (and others like broadcom) keep their drivers
proprietary.
9:13 p.m.
Allegedly, on or about 05 October 2016, JD sent:
I am wondering why they (and others like broadcom) keep their
drivers
proprietary.
Educated guess: Paranoia that it'll aid competitors, or that someone
will find out they've copied someone else's work into their product.
From my perspective, of hardware that I'd want to use, graphics cards
and printer drivers are the worst offenders. Virtually no manufacturer
builds a device that is based an an existing scheme that can be directly
supported and optionally improved, everything is a re-invention of the
wheel.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64
Boilerplate: All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is
no point trying to privately email me, I only get to see the messages
posted to the mailing list.
Windows, it's enough to make a grown man cry!
12:39 p.m.
Le 05/10/2016 18:40, Patrick O'Callaghan a écrit :
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 17:50 +0200, Klaus-Peter Schrage wrote:
> FWIW, I have reverted from the NVIDIA driver to nouveau quite often by
> simply doing
> $ sudo dnf remove xorg-x11-drv-nvidia
> which also removed most of the dependencies you have mentioned. After
> that I could reboot into nouveau without any other alterations - just to
> notice that nouveau is not my friend. So reverted to NVIDIA again in a
> similar way:
> $ sudo dnf install xorg-x11-drv-nvidia
> (which, on reboot, was followed by some lenghty stop/start jobs from
> akmod but worked in the end)
That's what I would expect to work. Just perplexed that it didn't and I
had to go round manually cleaning stuff up.
I'll probably have to go back to the Nvidia drivers anyway as the
Nouveau one is noticeably worse in Steam, even at low settings.
I don't know what Steam is.... I had to revert to nouveau recently
because the nvidia driver (340-96) is unable to give a correct
configuration if I plug a beamer on the VGA plug of my laptop.
It cannot handle different resolutions for the laptop screen (1440x900)
while the beamer has a 1024x768 resolution.
This was not the case before: I just finished to update this laptop from
f14 to f24. Under f14, I installed the nvidia driver and it perfectly
worked.
With the nouveau driver, plugging a beamer works (almost) immediately
using the xfce4 display manager (except if I want mirror screens! I have
to configure the display by hand, using xrandr).
--
François Patte
UFR de mathématiques et informatique
Laboratoire CNRS MAP5, UMR 8145
Université Paris Descartes
45, rue des Saints Pères
F-75270 Paris Cedex 06
Tél. +33 (0)1 8394 5849
http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte
1:20 p.m.
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 19:39 +0200, François Patte wrote:
> I'll probably have to go back to the Nvidia drivers anyway
as the
> Nouveau one is noticeably worse in Steam, even at low settings.
I don't know what Steam is....
It's a commercial gaming platform which is supported on Linux. I'm not
a big gamer but occasionally I indulge. Unfortunately this means using
the Nvidia drivers, at least for the titles I've tried.
I had to revert to nouveau recently
because the nvidia driver (340-96) is unable to give a correct
configuration if I plug a beamer on the VGA plug of my laptop.
My reason for switching to Nouveau originated in randomly not being
able to resume from hibernation when using the Nvidia drivers
(discussed on another thread). So it seems I can have either Steam or
hibernation, but not both.
poc
5:39 p.m.
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan <pocallaghan(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 19:39 +0200, François Patte wrote:
> > I'll probably have to go back to the Nvidia drivers anyway as the
> > Nouveau one is noticeably worse in Steam, even at low settings.
>
> I don't know what Steam is....
It's a commercial gaming platform which is supported on Linux. I'm not
a big gamer but occasionally I indulge. Unfortunately this means using
the Nvidia drivers, at least for the titles I've tried.
> I had to revert to nouveau recently
> because the nvidia driver (340-96) is unable to give a correct
> configuration if I plug a beamer on the VGA plug of my laptop.
My reason for switching to Nouveau originated in randomly not being
able to resume from hibernation when using the Nvidia drivers
(discussed on another thread). So it seems I can have either Steam or
hibernation, but not both.
This sort of trade-off is all too common, occurs across distros, and usually
requires experimentation by each user to figure out what works for a
particular use case. These days distros have converged to the point
that many bugs affect multiple distros,
In a small fraction of cases, the details show up in a mail list or forum.
In a small fraction of those cases, someone who really understands
the issue explains how to get to the root cause of the malfunctions.
Fedora users in particular should expect to run into problems and
should be prepared to invest some time digging into the problem
and documenting the findings.
Do you recognize your steam problem at
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Steam#Steam_runtime_issues?
--
George N. White III <aa056(a)chebucto.ns.ca>
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia
6:18 p.m.
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 19:39 -0300, George N. White III wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan
<pocallaghan(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 19:39 +0200, François Patte wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I'll probably have to go back to the Nvidia drivers anyway as the
> > > Nouveau one is noticeably worse in Steam, even at low settings.
> >
> > I don't know what Steam is....
>
> It's a commercial gaming platform which is supported on Linux. I'm not
> a big gamer but occasionally I indulge. Unfortunately this means using
> the Nvidia drivers, at least for the titles I've tried.
>
> >
> > I had to revert to nouveau recently
> > because the nvidia driver (340-96) is unable to give a correct
> > configuration if I plug a beamer on the VGA plug of my laptop.
>
> My reason for switching to Nouveau originated in randomly not being
> able to resume from hibernation when using the Nvidia drivers
> (discussed on another thread). So it seems I can have either Steam or
> hibernation, but not both.
>
This sort of trade-off is all too common, occurs across distros, and usually
requires experimentation by each user to figure out what works for a
particular use case. These days distros have converged to the point
that many bugs affect multiple distros,
In a small fraction of cases, the details show up in a mail list or forum.
In a small fraction of those cases, someone who really understands
the issue explains how to get to the root cause of the malfunctions.
Fedora users in particular should expect to run into problems and
should be prepared to invest some time digging into the problem
and documenting the findings.
Do you recognize your steam problem at
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Steam#Steam_runtime_issues?
I don't have a problem with Steam. As long as I use the Nvidia drivers
it works perfectly well. My problem is with hibernation. See the thread
starting at:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.o...
poc
4:33 a.m.
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan <pocallaghan(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 19:39 -0300, George N. White III wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan <
pocallaghan(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 19:39 +0200, François Patte wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'll probably have to go back to the Nvidia drivers anyway as
the
> > > > Nouveau one is noticeably worse in Steam, even at low settings.
> > >
> > > I don't know what Steam is....
> >
> > It's a commercial gaming platform which is supported on Linux. I'm not
> > a big gamer but occasionally I indulge. Unfortunately this means using
> > the Nvidia drivers, at least for the titles I've tried.
> >
> > >
> > > I had to revert to nouveau recently
> > > because the nvidia driver (340-96) is unable to give a correct
> > > configuration if I plug a beamer on the VGA plug of my laptop.
> >
> > My reason for switching to Nouveau originated in randomly not being
> > able to resume from hibernation when using the Nvidia drivers
> > (discussed on another thread). So it seems I can have either Steam or
> > hibernation, but not both.
> >
>
> This sort of trade-off is all too common, occurs across distros, and
usually
> requires experimentation by each user to figure out what works for a
> particular use case. These days distros have converged to the point
> that many bugs affect multiple distros,
>
> In a small fraction of cases, the details show up in a mail list or
forum.
> In a small fraction of those cases, someone who really understands
> the issue explains how to get to the root cause of the malfunctions.
> Fedora users in particular should expect to run into problems and
> should be prepared to invest some time digging into the problem
> and documenting the findings.
>
>
> Do you recognize your steam problem at
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Steam#Steam_runtime_issues?
I don't have a problem with Steam. As long as I use the Nvidia drivers
it works perfectly well. My problem is with hibernation. See the thread
starting at:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.
fedoraproject.org/thread/K3AI2V6AAW3SXYD4WI7AKUVP7HGYQRN5/#
NLCYKEWHYTODJPM7QHHUCH22LCEQOWCQ
You mentioned problems with Steam under Nouveau. Sorting that means more
people, including you, can use Nouveau. Sorting a problem involving
Nvidia
drivers is more likely to be an exercise in frustration since we aren't
allowed
to see big parts of the code that might be involved.
--
George N. White III <aa056(a)chebucto.ns.ca>
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia
5:27 a.m.
On Thu, 2016-10-06 at 06:33 -0300, George N. White III wrote:
> I don't have a problem with Steam. As long as I use the
Nvidia drivers
> it works perfectly well. My problem is with hibernation. See the thread
> starting at:
>
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.
> fedoraproject.org/thread/K3AI2V6AAW3SXYD4WI7AKUVP7HGYQRN5/#
> NLCYKEWHYTODJPM7QHHUCH22LCEQOWCQ
>
>
You mentioned problems with Steam under Nouveau. Sorting that means more
people, including you, can use Nouveau. Sorting a problem involving
Nvidia
drivers is more likely to be an exercise in frustration since we aren't
allowed
to see big parts of the code that might be involved.
No doubt, but a) I'm not an expert on graphics drivers so realistically
I can't contribute anything useful to the Nouveau project other than
testing stuff, and b) the Nvidia hardware is proprietary and (I assume)
incompletely documented. This is true of a lot of GPU chipsets. The
proprietary drivers work better because they use undocumented features.
Apparently
poc
11:17 p.m.
On 10/06/2016 03:27 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2016-10-06 at 06:33 -0300, George N. White III wrote:
>> I don't have a problem with Steam. As long as I use the Nvidia drivers
>> it works perfectly well. My problem is with hibernation. See the thread
>> starting at:
>>
> You mentioned problems with Steam under Nouveau. Sorting that means more
> people, including you, can use Nouveau. Sorting a problem involving
> Nvidia
> drivers is more likely to be an exercise in frustration since we aren't
> allowed
> to see big parts of the code that might be involved.
No doubt, but a) I'm not an expert on graphics drivers so realistically
I can't contribute anything useful to the Nouveau project other than
testing stuff, and b) the Nvidia hardware is proprietary and (I assume)
incompletely documented. This is true of a lot of GPU chipsets. The
proprietary drivers work better because they use undocumented features.
Apparently
Sure, but the point George was making was that if you file a bug on
Nouveau with the problems that you're having with Steam, maybe it could
get fixed and you wouldn't have to worry about hibernating with the
NVidia driver.
5:11 a.m.
On Thu, 2016-10-06 at 21:17 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 10/06/2016 03:27 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2016-10-06 at 06:33 -0300, George N. White III wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I don't have a problem with Steam. As long as I use the Nvidia
drivers
> > > it works perfectly well. My problem is with hibernation. See the thread
> > > starting at:
> > >
> > You mentioned problems with Steam under Nouveau. Sorting that means more
> > people, including you, can use Nouveau. Sorting a problem involving
> > Nvidia
> > drivers is more likely to be an exercise in frustration since we aren't
> > allowed
> > to see big parts of the code that might be involved.
>
> No doubt, but a) I'm not an expert on graphics drivers so realistically
> I can't contribute anything useful to the Nouveau project other than
> testing stuff, and b) the Nvidia hardware is proprietary and (I assume)
> incompletely documented. This is true of a lot of GPU chipsets. The
> proprietary drivers work better because they use undocumented features.
> Apparently
>
Sure, but the point George was making was that if you file a bug on
Nouveau with the problems that you're having with Steam, maybe it could
get fixed and you wouldn't have to worry about hibernating with the
NVidia driver.
I understand that, however the issue isn't that Steam doesn't work, but
that some FPS-type games are too laggy to be usable, i.e. the problem
is performance rather than function. I may look into it at some point
but for now I've just settled on using suspend instead of hibernate,
and that works fine.
poc
9:22 a.m.
On 10/07/2016 05:11 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
<<<>>>
I understand that, however the issue isn't that Steam doesn't
work, but
that some FPS-type games are too laggy to be usable, i.e. the problem
is performance rather than function. I may look into it at some point
but for now I've just settled on using suspend instead of hibernate,
and that works fine.
==>
greetings poc.
you do not mention if problem system is a desktop or laptop, tho such
may not matter.
in following your thread, there are a couple things that i wonder about.
1- did problem start after an update or some other system change?
2- why do you place fault with graphics card?
3- is swap partition of adequate size to hold running programs that
are using memory/disk space along with running system?
i installed centos 6 on a laptop and left oos in event i need to upgrade
bios.
as like with my desktop system laptop is powered up 24/7 and i use
'suspend to disk' when i take it somewhere.
on 1 occasion, i was not able to 'suspend to disk'. after much checking
failed to find problem, i reverted to a full power down.
days later, i needed to collect and save a bunch of files to a usb
memory stick. to see which partitions had space to hold collection,
i ran a script 'dfs' [aka 'df -k|grep /dev/sd|sort'] to see what was
available and opened 'disk utility' to mount usb memory stick.
still unknown to me as to why, i clicked on the hdd and to my surprise,
i found that extended partition was showing an ntfs partition at start
of extended partition.
how such happened, i have no clue. deleting ntfs partition cleared my
suspend problem.
thus is reason for questions 2 & 3 above, and suggestion that you might
check to insure that your swap partition is of adequate size.
much luck.
--
peace out.
CentOS GNU/Linux 6.8
tc,hago.
g
.
=+=
Tired of having your microsoft os hacked?
Change to Linux os, used by microsoft hackers.
=+=
in a world with out fences, who needs gates.
=+=
10:35 a.m.
On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 09:22 -0500, geo.inbox.ignored wrote:
you do not mention if problem system is a desktop or laptop, tho
such
may not matter.
It's desktop with an added Nvidia card.
in following your thread, there are a couple things that i wonder
about.
1- did problem start after an update or some other system change?
Most likely after an Nvidia driver update, but TBH I wasn't paying
attention.
2- why do you place fault with graphics card?
I place the problem with the graphics *driver* because when I switch
drivers it goes away, and when I switch them back it returns.
3- is swap partition of adequate size to hold running programs that
are using memory/disk space along with running system?
Yes. I enabled hibernation months ago and it worked up until fairly
recently (2 or 4 weeks roughly). Hence my conclusion that the Nvidia
drivers have something to do with it. Unfortunately Googling the issue
doesn't show up anything useful. If I kept notes of significant changes
(or could understand the systemd journal) I could probably pin it down,
but that's a big ask. I suspect many of us are in the same position.
As I said, I'm happy enough with suspend for now. My aim was to reduce
power consumption at night (this isn't a server that has to be on all
the time).
poc
11:38 a.m.
On 10/07/2016 10:35 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 09:22 -0500, geo.inbox.ignored wrote:
> you do not mention if problem system is a desktop or laptop, tho such
> may not matter.
It's desktop with an added Nvidia card.
> in following your thread, there are a couple things that i wonder about.
>
> 1- did problem start after an update or some other system change?
Most likely after an Nvidia driver update, but TBH I wasn't paying
attention.
> 2- why do you place fault with graphics card?
I place the problem with the graphics *driver* because when I switch
drivers it goes away, and when I switch them back it returns.
> 3- is swap partition of adequate size to hold running programs that
> are using memory/disk space along with running system?
Yes. I enabled hibernation months ago and it worked up until fairly
recently (2 or 4 weeks roughly). Hence my conclusion that the Nvidia
drivers have something to do with it. Unfortunately Googling the issue
doesn't show up anything useful. If I kept notes of significant changes
(or could understand the systemd journal) I could probably pin it down,
but that's a big ask. I suspect many of us are in the same position.
As I said, I'm happy enough with suspend for now. My aim was to reduce
power consumption at night (this isn't a server that has to be on all
the time).
==>
this now reads as if main of problem is with the coding of new driver.
that is, new driver is not liking your video chipset.
therefore, i believe your solution would be to get with nvidia to insure
their new driver handles your chipset.
if it happens to be an 'optimus', then you might have a look at;
http://bumblee-project.org
as for nvidia site, check to see if you can find a more proper driver at;
http://www.nvidia.com/download/index.aspx
as for 'on all the time', i agree about your saving power.
*but*, give consideration to fact that powering a system up and down
can be more costly due to 'electronic' wear and tear on system.
computers are like a light bulb, leave the light on and it will last
longer than it will by having to deal with inrush current when turned
on from a cold state.
if you feel that you must save power, consider 'save to memory'. in
'long run', cost of electricity may well be less than having to replace
costly components.
--
peace out.
CentOS GNU/Linux 6.8
tc,hago.
g
.
=+=
Tired of having your microsoft os hacked?
Change to Linux os, used by microsoft hackers.
=+=
in a world with out fences, who needs gates.
=+=
2:03 p.m.
On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 11:38 -0500, geo.inbox.ignored wrote:
as for nvidia site, check to see if you can find a more proper driver
at;
http://www.nvidia.com/download/index.aspx
That's where the drivers come from, via RPMfusion.
as for 'on all the time', i agree about your saving power.
*but*, give consideration to fact that powering a system up and down
can be more costly due to 'electronic' wear and tear on system.
I tend to agree in fact. I never used to turn my computers off, then I
worked out how much power they consume and how much it costs. I've
noticed a difference in my bill since I started doing this.
poc
10:44 a.m.
On 10/07/2016 02:03 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 11:38 -0500, geo.inbox.ignored wrote:
> as for nvidia site, check to see if you can find a more proper driver at;
>
> http://www.nvidia.com/download/index.aspx
That's where the drivers come from, via RPMfusion.
> as for 'on all the time', i agree about your saving power.
>
> *but*, give consideration to fact that powering a system up and down
> can be more costly due to 'electronic' wear and tear on system.
I tend to agree in fact. I never used to turn my computers off, then I
worked out how much power they consume and how much it costs. I've
noticed a difference in my bill since I started doing this.
==>
well yes. of course there will be power consumption from mains.
my view is there is less electronic wear and tear when powered up
24/7 and due to inrush power surge on power up, less chance of some
component going bad.
years back when i did computer systems work, i had a couple client
calls for a system not powering up at start of morning hours. i used
light bulb example to explain why and that they would naturally see
an increase in utilities bill. both started leaving systems up.
have a friend who's system lost power supply on power up, and again,
after explaining about light bulb, he leaves system powered up and
because he is using centos and kde, he uses 'suspend to ram' when
not using and 'suspend to disk' when away for several days.
it is all owners choice.
ps.
excuse delay in reply. problems with thunderbird
had me unable to run email.
--
peace out.
CentOS GNU/Linux 6.8
tc,hago.
g
.
=+=
Tired of having your microsoft os hacked?
Change to Linux os, used by microsoft hackers.
=+=
in a world with out fences, who needs gates.
=+=
5:45 a.m.
On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 11:38 -0500, geo.inbox.ignored wrote:
computers are like a light bulb, leave the light on and it will last
longer than it will by having to deal with inrush current when turned
on from a cold state.
if you feel that you must save power, consider 'save to memory'. in
'long run', cost of electricity may well be less than having to
replace costly components.
There's a weigh off between how *often* you turn something on and off,
versus the leave it on approach.
Taking your lightbulb example, and running it to the extremes. I have
lights that lasted for years, despite being turned on and off. But if I
rapidly flip the switch, I can blow a lamp in under a minute.
Switching something on and off many times an hour is definitely going to
provoke the gremlins. But switching it on once a day, only having it
running for half a day, is probably going to be better than leaving it
on all the time (particularly with general consumer equipment). As well
as the electricity costs, which are not insignificant (especially if
you're doing this with many appliances), you have things with bearings
that wear out (fans, disc drives).
I work in video production, and I'm well familiar with the notion of
leaving things always on. Stations do that for many reasons, avoiding
technical failure is just one, having things always ready to go in an
instant is probably just as important.
But at home, I've got a server that runs 24/7, and it's needed fans
replacing a few times. I've got similarly old computers that are turned
off and on daily, and those are running just as well as they always did.
And I'm talking of equipment that's somewhere around the ten year old
mark.
--
tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.19.8-100.fc20.i686 #1 SMP Tue May 12 17:42:35 UTC 2015 i686
All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point trying
to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the public lists.
George Orwell's '1984' was supposed to be a warning against tyranny, not
a set of instructions for supposedly democratic governments.
11:42 a.m.
On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 16:35 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
As I said, I'm happy enough with suspend for now. My aim was to
reduce
power consumption at night (this isn't a server that has to be on all
the time).
I dont' think computers use that much power (least normal workstations
anyway) to bring up or down your utility bill much, so couldn't you
just leave it on as is and just shut off your monitor until your ready
to use it again?
--
Mike Chambers
Madisonville, KY
"Best lil town on Earth!"
1:52 p.m.
On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 11:42 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 16:35 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> As I said, I'm happy enough with suspend for now. My aim was to
> reduce
> power consumption at night (this isn't a server that has to be on all
> the time).
I dont' think computers use that much power (least normal workstations
anyway) to bring up or down your utility bill much, so couldn't you
just leave it on as is and just shut off your monitor until your ready
to use it again?
I used to do that up until about a year ago. Since then I think I have
noticed a reduced utility bill, but of course that's not really
evidence as there are other factors, including lower rates because of
the drop in oil prices. This is an i7 system with an Nvidia card, an
SSD, a 1TB SATA drive and 16TGB of RAM, so probably above average for
home workstations in terms of power consumption. The monitor is a 23-
inch HP LCD.
If there were an easy way to measure it I would :-)
poc
2:31 p.m.
On 10/10/2016 11:52 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 11:42 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 16:35 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
>>
>> As I said, I'm happy enough with suspend for now. My aim was to
>> reduce
>> power consumption at night (this isn't a server that has to be on all
>> the time).
>
> I dont' think computers use that much power (least normal workstations
> anyway) to bring up or down your utility bill much, so couldn't you
> just leave it on as is and just shut off your monitor until your ready
> to use it again?
I used to do that up until about a year ago. Since then I think I have
noticed a reduced utility bill, but of course that's not really
evidence as there are other factors, including lower rates because of
the drop in oil prices. This is an i7 system with an Nvidia card, an
SSD, a 1TB SATA drive and 16TGB of RAM, so probably above average for
home workstations in terms of power consumption. The monitor is a 23-
inch HP LCD.
Well, I dunno, 16 tera gigabytes of RAM (you said 16TGB) is a hell of
a lot! I've never seen a mobo that could handle that. :-) Must have the
cooling system from hell in there!
If there were an easy way to measure it I would :-)
If you have a clamp-style AC ammeter, you can get a widget that you
plug into your outlet and your system plugs into the widget. The widget
splits the hot line out separately. You put your ammeter around that leg
and measure the current. You can compute your usage using Ohm's law,
e.g. if you measure 2A at 120V, that's 240 VA. If you want it in watts,
your average computer has a power factor of about .8, so that'd be 240
times .8 or 192 watts (or so).
Just an idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ricks(a)alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 -
- -
- "The bogosity meter just pegged." -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2:49 p.m.
On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 12:31 -0700, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 10/10/2016 11:52 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 11:42 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 16:35 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > As I said, I'm happy enough with suspend for now. My aim was to
> > > reduce
> > > power consumption at night (this isn't a server that has to be on all
> > > the time).
> >
> > I dont' think computers use that much power (least normal workstations
> > anyway) to bring up or down your utility bill much, so couldn't you
> > just leave it on as is and just shut off your monitor until your ready
> > to use it again?
>
> I used to do that up until about a year ago. Since then I think I have
> noticed a reduced utility bill, but of course that's not really
> evidence as there are other factors, including lower rates because of
> the drop in oil prices. This is an i7 system with an Nvidia card, an
> SSD, a 1TB SATA drive and 16TGB of RAM, so probably above average for
> home workstations in terms of power consumption. The monitor is a 23-
> inch HP LCD.
Well, I dunno, 16 tera gigabytes of RAM (you said 16TGB) is a hell of
a lot! I've never seen a mobo that could handle that. :-) Must have the
cooling system from hell in there!
>
> If there were an easy way to measure it I would :-)
If you have a clamp-style AC ammeter, you can get a widget that you
plug into your outlet and your system plugs into the widget. The widget
splits the hot line out separately. You put your ammeter around that leg
and measure the current. You can compute your usage using Ohm's law,
e.g. if you measure 2A at 120V, that's 240 VA. If you want it in watts,
your average computer has a power factor of about .8, so that'd be 240
times .8 or 192 watts (or so).
Just an idea.
Well, apparently the savings might not offset the price of the ammeter,
but I suppose the advancement of knowledge always has a cost :-)
poc
3:07 p.m.
On 10/10/2016 12:49 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Well, apparently the savings might not offset the price of the
ammeter,
but I suppose the advancement of knowledge always has a cost :-)
I remember back in the late '80s seeing a study that found that the cost
per hour of running a desktop (386 with a CRT monitor) was about
$.04/hr. Adjust that for inflation and you'll get a fairly good first
approximation of what the cost is now because while modern monitors use
less power, today's more powerful computers use more, balancing things
out to some extent.
3:28 p.m.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 01:07:54PM -0700, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 10/10/2016 12:49 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>Well, apparently the savings might not offset the price of the ammeter,
>but I suppose the advancement of knowledge always has a cost :-)
I remember back in the late '80s seeing a study that found that the
cost per hour of running a desktop (386 with a CRT monitor) was
about $.04/hr. Adjust that for inflation and you'll get a fairly
good first approximation of what the cost is now because while
modern monitors use less power, today's more powerful computers use
more, balancing things out to some extent.
I've missed the beginning of this thread, so I beg forgiveness should
this response be off-base.
To measure the power my computer uses, I use a Kill-a-Watt meter,
at last notice they were available from Amazon. The one I have was
something like 20 dollars, a few years ago. It continuously tells
me the wattage used. alternatively it can report several other measurements
as well (it isn't where I am, so I won't go out on a limb with a list
that may be wrong.)
You plug it into your outlet, then plug the computer into it. Press
the right button on the front to get the measurement you want.
It is reporting that my computer uses around 117 watts (plus or minus
a couple) when running FoldingAtHome on both a six-core AMD and the
Nvidia 750Ti GPU. without the FAH client it would probably be around
half that (I haven't done that measurement).
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as
the result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I forward chain
letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers
of others. This is my contribution to the survival of the online
community.
--Roger Ebert, December, 1996
----------------------------- The Boulder Pledge -----------------------------
4:54 a.m.
On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 16:28 -0400, Fred Smith wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 01:07:54PM -0700, Joe Zeff wrote:
>
> On 10/10/2016 12:49 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> > Well, apparently the savings might not offset the price of the ammeter,
> > but I suppose the advancement of knowledge always has a cost :-)
>
> I remember back in the late '80s seeing a study that found that the
> cost per hour of running a desktop (386 with a CRT monitor) was
> about $.04/hr. Adjust that for inflation and you'll get a fairly
> good first approximation of what the cost is now because while
> modern monitors use less power, today's more powerful computers use
> more, balancing things out to some extent.
I've missed the beginning of this thread, so I beg forgiveness should
this response be off-base.
To measure the power my computer uses, I use a Kill-a-Watt meter,
at last notice they were available from Amazon. The one I have was
something like 20 dollars, a few years ago. It continuously tells
me the wattage used. alternatively it can report several other measurements
as well (it isn't where I am, so I won't go out on a limb with a list
that may be wrong.)
You plug it into your outlet, then plug the computer into it. Press
the right button on the front to get the measurement you want.
It is reporting that my computer uses around 117 watts (plus or minus
a couple) when running FoldingAtHome on both a six-core AMD and the
Nvidia 750Ti GPU. without the FAH client it would probably be around
half that (I haven't done that measurement).
I'm considering it (as my curiosity is piqued) but a number of the
devices available on Amazon have negative reviews regarding accuracy,
ease of use etc. No biggie but I'll think about it for a while.
poc
4:16 p.m.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan <pocallaghan(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 12:31 -0700, Rick Stevens wrote:
> On 10/10/2016 11:52 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 11:42 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 16:35 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As I said, I'm happy enough with suspend for now. My aim was to
> > > > reduce
> > > > power consumption at night (this isn't a server that has to be
on
all
> > > > the time).
> > >
> > > I dont' think computers use that much power (least normal
workstations
> > > anyway) to bring up or down your utility bill much, so couldn't you
> > > just leave it on as is and just shut off your monitor until your
ready
> > > to use it again?
> >
> > I used to do that up until about a year ago. Since then I think I have
> > noticed a reduced utility bill, but of course that's not really
> > evidence as there are other factors, including lower rates because of
> > the drop in oil prices. This is an i7 system with an Nvidia card, an
> > SSD, a 1TB SATA drive and 16TGB of RAM, so probably above average for
> > home workstations in terms of power consumption. The monitor is a 23-
> > inch HP LCD.
>
> Well, I dunno, 16 tera gigabytes of RAM (you said 16TGB) is a hell of
> a lot! I've never seen a mobo that could handle that. :-) Must have the
> cooling system from hell in there!
>
> >
> > If there were an easy way to measure it I would :-)
>
> If you have a clamp-style AC ammeter, you can get a widget that you
> plug into your outlet and your system plugs into the widget. The widget
> splits the hot line out separately. You put your ammeter around that leg
> and measure the current. You can compute your usage using Ohm's law,
> e.g. if you measure 2A at 120V, that's 240 VA. If you want it in watts,
> your average computer has a power factor of about .8, so that'd be 240
> times .8 or 192 watts (or so).
>
> Just an idea.
Well, apparently the savings might not offset the price of the ammeter,
but I suppose the advancement of knowledge always has a cost :-)
poc
Well Patrick, I was wondering if there is a website
that identifies cards (chipsets) NOT supported by linux.
I see for example FBSD users not finding drivers for
Broadcom chipsets (perhaps only specific ones).
So, to help
existing linux users and newbs, it seems
that such a website would go a long way to let people
know what are NOT supported, or partially supported
devices. It would also helps people shopping for a new
computer to avoid laptops that have unsupported chipsets.
Cheers,
JD
4:38 p.m.
On 10/10/2016 02:16 PM, JD wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan
<pocallaghan(a)gmail.com <mailto:pocallaghan@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 12:31 -0700, Rick Stevens wrote:
> On 10/10/2016 11:52 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 11:42 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 16:35 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As I said, I'm happy enough with suspend for now. My aim was
to
> > > > reduce
> > > > power consumption at night (this isn't a server that has to
be on all
> > > > the time).
> > >
> > > I dont' think computers use that much power (least normal
workstations
> > > anyway) to bring up or down your utility bill much, so
couldn't you
> > > just leave it on as is and just shut off your monitor until
your ready
> > > to use it again?
> >
> > I used to do that up until about a year ago. Since then I think
I have
> > noticed a reduced utility bill, but of course that's not really
> > evidence as there are other factors, including lower rates
because of
> > the drop in oil prices. This is an i7 system with an Nvidia card, an
> > SSD, a 1TB SATA drive and 16TGB of RAM, so probably above
average for
> > home workstations in terms of power consumption. The monitor is
a 23-
> > inch HP LCD.
>
> Well, I dunno, 16 tera gigabytes of RAM (you said 16TGB) is a hell of
> a lot! I've never seen a mobo that could handle that. :-) Must
have the
> cooling system from hell in there!
>
> >
> > If there were an easy way to measure it I would :-)
>
> If you have a clamp-style AC ammeter, you can get a widget that you
> plug into your outlet and your system plugs into the widget. The
widget
> splits the hot line out separately. You put your ammeter around
that leg
> and measure the current. You can compute your usage using Ohm's law,
> e.g. if you measure 2A at 120V, that's 240 VA. If you want it in
watts,
> your average computer has a power factor of about .8, so that'd be 240
> times .8 or 192 watts (or so).
>
> Just an idea.
Well, apparently the savings might not offset the price of the ammeter,
but I suppose the advancement of knowledge always has a cost :-)
poc
Well Patrick, I was wondering if there is a website
that identifies cards (chipsets) NOT supported by linux.
I see for example FBSD users not finding drivers for
Broadcom chipsets (perhaps only specific ones).
So, to help
existing linux users and newbs, it seems
that such a website would go a long way to let people
know what are NOT supported, or partially supported
devices. It would also helps people shopping for a new
computer to avoid laptops that have unsupported chipsets.
There are a number of sites like that. Google "linux hardware
compatibility". A good resource is http://www.linux-drivers.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ricks(a)alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 -
- -
- "I was contemplating the immortal words of Socrates when he said, -
- 'I drank WHAT?'" -- Val Kilmer in "Real Genius"
-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
7:02 p.m.
On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 14:38 -0700, Rick Stevens wrote:
There are a number of sites like that. Google "linux hardware
compatibility". A good resource is http://www.linux-drivers.org/
The dongle is labelled "Anycom 2.0", but I don't know the chipset and a
search for "anycom" on that page gives no results.
I'd be up for getting a new dongle if I could be sure it was fully
supported, otherwise it's probably more trouble than it's worth.
poc
3:27 p.m.
On 10/10/2016 03:31 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 10/10/2016 11:52 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 11:42 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
>> On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 16:35 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>>
>>> As I said, I'm happy enough with suspend for now. My aim was to
>>> reduce
>>> power consumption at night (this isn't a server that has to be on all
>>> the time).
>> I dont' think computers use that much power (least normal workstations
>> anyway) to bring up or down your utility bill much, so couldn't you
>> just leave it on as is and just shut off your monitor until your ready
>> to use it again?
> I used to do that up until about a year ago. Since then I think I have
> noticed a reduced utility bill, but of course that's not really
> evidence as there are other factors, including lower rates because of
> the drop in oil prices. This is an i7 system with an Nvidia card, an
> SSD, a 1TB SATA drive and 16TGB of RAM, so probably above average for
> home workstations in terms of power consumption. The monitor is a 23-
> inch HP LCD.
Well, I dunno, 16 tera gigabytes of RAM (you said 16TGB) is a hell of
a lot! I've never seen a mobo that could handle that. :-) Must have the
cooling system from hell in there!
> If there were an easy way to measure it I would :-)
If you have a clamp-style AC ammeter, you can get a widget that you
plug into your outlet and your system plugs into the widget. The widget
splits the hot line out separately. You put your ammeter around that leg
and measure the current. You can compute your usage using Ohm's law,
e.g. if you measure 2A at 120V, that's 240 VA. If you want it in watts,
your average computer has a power factor of about .8, so that'd be 240
times .8 or 192 watts (or so).
Just an idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ricks(a)alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 -
- -
- "The bogosity meter just pegged." -
There are a number of devices that will do the calculations directly.
A page full of them is at
http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/281148981683?lpid=82&chn=ps&ul_noapp...
and there are a number of devices of similar function under the
trade-mark Kill-A-Watt
but somewhat more expensive. No need to connect an external volt meter,
which is
a bit dangerous.
--doug
3:37 p.m.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 07:52:49PM +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 11:42 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 16:35 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> > As I said, I'm happy enough with suspend for now. My aim was to
> > reduce power consumption at night (this isn't a server that has
> > to be on all the time).
>
> I dont' think computers use that much power (least normal workstations
> anyway) to bring up or down your utility bill much, so couldn't you
> just leave it on as is and just shut off your monitor until your ready
> to use it again?
I used to do that up until about a year ago. Since then I think I have
noticed a reduced utility bill, but of course that's not really
evidence as there are other factors, including lower rates because of
the drop in oil prices. This is an i7 system with an Nvidia card, an
SSD, a 1TB SATA drive and 16TGB of RAM, so probably above average for
home workstations in terms of power consumption. The monitor is a 23-
inch HP LCD.
If there were an easy way to measure it I would :-)
I can put some numbers on the discussion. I checked my electric bills
for the last 6 months and the rate is about 8500 Watt-Hours for $1.
As there are 8766 hours in a year, that means for me, a continuous draw
of 1 watt will cost about $1/yr.
My UPS has a front panel display that can show watts drawn. Besides the
computer and monitor, the only thing plugged into the UPS is an ethernet
switch and a cordless phone charger.
My system is a little larger than Patrick's; a 6 core i7, overclocked to
4.0GHz, 32GB RAM, 2 SSD's plus 2 2TB rotaters, nVidia card and 24 inch
LCD monitor. Much larger than I need, but I only buy one every 8-10 yrs.
Here is the power draw from the UPS under 3 conditions:
Computer idling, cpu's at 1.1GHz 110 Watts
Monitor on but blank
Computer idling, cpu's at 1.1GHz 150 Watts
Monitor lit
All 6 cores plus 6 hyper-thread 280 Watts
cores running at 99% usage at 4.0MHz
One SSD active, no rotaters active
Monitor lit
So for me, at my electric rate, keeping this computer on 24/7 costs
me about $100/yr. YMMV!
Jon
--
Jon H. LaBadie jonfu(a)jgcomp.com
12:48 p.m.
On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 19:52:49 +0100
Patrick O'Callaghan <pocallaghan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 11:42 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 16:35 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> >
> > As I said, I'm happy enough with suspend for now. My aim was to
> > reduce
> > power consumption at night (this isn't a server that has to be on
> > all the time).
>
> I dont' think computers use that much power (least normal
> workstations anyway) to bring up or down your utility bill much, so
> couldn't you just leave it on as is and just shut off your monitor
> until your ready to use it again?
I used to do that up until about a year ago. Since then I think I have
noticed a reduced utility bill, but of course that's not really
evidence as there are other factors, including lower rates because of
the drop in oil prices. This is an i7 system with an Nvidia card, an
SSD, a 1TB SATA drive and 16TGB of RAM, so probably above average for
home workstations in terms of power consumption. The monitor is a 23-
inch HP LCD.
If there were an easy way to measure it I would :-)
poc
You might have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_A_Watt
I have tried them and they work quite well to determine individual
appliance power consumption.
Fred
2:03 p.m.
On Tue, 2016-10-11 at 09:48 -0800, Fred wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 19:52:49 +0100
Patrick O'Callaghan <pocallaghan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 11:42 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 16:35 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > As I said, I'm happy enough with suspend for now. My aim was to
> > > reduce
> > > power consumption at night (this isn't a server that has to be on
> > > all the time).
> >
> > I dont' think computers use that much power (least normal
> > workstations anyway) to bring up or down your utility bill much, so
> > couldn't you just leave it on as is and just shut off your monitor
> > until your ready to use it again?
>
> I used to do that up until about a year ago. Since then I think I have
> noticed a reduced utility bill, but of course that's not really
> evidence as there are other factors, including lower rates because of
> the drop in oil prices. This is an i7 system with an Nvidia card, an
> SSD, a 1TB SATA drive and 16TGB of RAM, so probably above average for
> home workstations in terms of power consumption. The monitor is a 23-
> inch HP LCD.
>
> If there were an easy way to measure it I would :-)
>
> poc
You might have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_A_Watt
I have tried them and they work quite well to determine individual
appliance power consumption.
Thanks.
poc
2740
days inactive
2759
days old
41 comments
16 participants
participants (16)
-
Doug -
François Patte -
Fred -
Fred Smith -
geo.inbox.ignored -
George N. White III -
JD -
Joe Zeff -
Jon LaBadie -
Klaus-Peter Schrage -
Mike Chambers -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Rick Stevens -
Samuel Sieb -
Tim -
Tom Horsley