- Protecting yourself from a new online scam
- Diary of a deliberately spammed housewife
- Silly Internet traditions: A concise history
- How to avoid laptop loss at the airport
- Top 10 worst uses for Windows
News | Newsletters | Podcasts | Chats | Opinions | RSS Feeds | This Week In Print | IT Careers | Community | Reports | Downloads | Slideshows | New Data Center
Partner Sites:App Performance | On Demand Security | Networking Solution | SOA | Value of WDS
One of the challenges in mobile computing is battery life. It's hard to be productive with a dead battery, so IT personnel and users alike need to think about maximizing run time between charges.
Optimizing the power conservation settings of a mobile computer or communicator, including dimming the display when on battery, turning off the display and hard drive after a pre-set period of time, suspending (keeping memory alive but the computer otherwise powered down) and hibernating (writing the image of main memory to disk for later resumption) help in getting the most out of any given charge. (Read a related story on how to get the most out of your battery.)
And there are also power conservation settings in most Wi-Fi adapters that (at first glance, anyway) are intended to allow a high degree of control over the power consumed by the wireless network interface card (NIC) found in almost all notebooks and many handhelds as well. In gross terms, wireless power conservation involves turning off the radio, synchronously or asynchronously with the fixed infrastructure, for a portion of time - a technique used in various forms on essentially all production wireless systems today, including WANs. But this technique motivates an interesting and fundamental question: do Wi-Fi power-conservation techniques, when enabled, actually save a meaningful amount of energy or have any negative impact on throughput?
We set out to define a simple test to answer these questions as they pertain to 802.11's Power Save Mode (PSM), the most common form of Wi-Fi power saving implemented today. We do note that there are several new power saving mechanisms defined for 802.11n (see related story on standards) gear, but we have not found those to be widely implemented, so we could not assess those at this juncture.
Vendors have delivered a number of PSM variants, with the primary difference being how quickly and how often the adapter wakes up. Having a NIC wake up faster could negatively affect power consumption, the fundamental tradeoff in this strategy, although this could theoretically improve throughput. The opposite of PSM is Constantly Awake Mode (CAM), in which PSM is disabled. Our test compared various forms and implementations of PSM against CAM and, for good measure, a wired gigabit Ethernet baseline test.
- on-demand, instant resourcing: you can request 200 new compute instances and you can get them, there...- Craig Balding
Comments (7)
Intel power settings kill performanceBy Anonymous on May 20, 2008, 2:38 pmI wanted to share my experience with a similar wi-fi power saving feature that degraded wireless performance. I work as a Computer Technician in a medium sized PC...
Reply | Read entire comment
Not sure that's true...By Craig Mathias on May 16, 2008, 1:06 pmIf you look carefully, some operate degraded with .3af power. I've not benchmarked many of these so I can't say exactly what they get. I am wrapping up another...
Reply | Read entire comment
InfrastructureBy Anonymous on May 16, 2008, 12:36 pmI was wondering what 802.11n access-points did not run with 802.3af? I just finished reviewing at least the largest vendors and they all support 802.11af at N rates...
Reply | Read entire comment
You are correct...By Craig Mathias on May 16, 2008, 8:22 amI didn't do any testing varying DTIM simply because of (a) the limited scope and timeframe of the test, and (b) the assumption that users would only rarely attempt...
Reply | Read entire comment
Not flawed, but maybe not the whole storyBy michaelbl on May 15, 2008, 12:02 amCraig, I agree that the test was not flawed. However, did you test different combinations of beacon interval and/or DTIM settings on the access point? If so,...
Reply | Read entire comment
View all comments