From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pascal Vandeputte Subject: Re: regarding frequent head unload problem Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:12:17 +0200 Message-ID: <48E144B1.1070508@asmodeus.be> References: <48E08B99.1070508@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx-out.mail002.coreserver.be ([83.143.245.22]:38989 "EHLO mx-out.mail002.coreserver.be" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751377AbYI2VMT (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:12:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <48E08B99.1070508@kernel.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: "Ivan N. Zlatev" , Robert Krawitz , Omar A , Carlos Bessa , Andy Vaselaar , webmaster@dragontower.de, Christian Wolf , "A. Klitzing" , Stefan Henriet , IDE/ATA development list Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > I'm writing to everyone who reported to me or linux-ide about frequent > head unload problem and the report is not yet committed to > storage-fixup.conf. > > I'm a bit worried about the explosion of reports because I really > wanna avoid creating false entries as they will increase power > consumption on Linux unnecessarily. [...] Hi, I understand your concern. It mainly comes down to how much earlier your battery is drained I guess (without taking the "green" aspect into account). Would anyone have any numbers on that? If not, we could do a test ourselves (torturing our drives for a few hours extra, percentage-wise the extra wear and tear is limited). The amount of power saved will probably differ between drive manufacturers & models as well. My gut feeling is that it won't make that much of a difference, but it's indeed something to think about. Greetings, Pascal