On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 03:04:07PM -0000, Torsten Römer wrote:
> Sounds reasonable, and without wanting to turn this bug report into a
> discussion thread: Are there some interesting values for apm_battery
> between 128 and 254 to try out, to sort of find a good trade-off between
> lots of load cycles vs. heads never being parked? I googled without much
> success, it seems to be all or nothing.
The meaning of these values is very implementation-dependent. As the
hdparm(8) manpage says, 1-127 "permit spin-down", and 128-254 "do not permit
spin-down"; other than that, there's no requirement for different values to
give different results, except that the lower the number the more aggressive
the power management.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
<email address hidden> <email address hidden>
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 03:04:07PM -0000, Torsten Römer wrote:
> Sounds reasonable, and without wanting to turn this bug report into a
> discussion thread: Are there some interesting values for apm_battery
> between 128 and 254 to try out, to sort of find a good trade-off between
> lots of load cycles vs. heads never being parked? I googled without much
> success, it seems to be all or nothing.
The meaning of these values is very implementation- dependent. As the
hdparm(8) manpage says, 1-127 "permit spin-down", and 128-254 "do not permit
spin-down"; other than that, there's no requirement for different values to
give different results, except that the lower the number the more aggressive
the power management.
-- www.debian. org/
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://
<email address hidden> <email address hidden>