Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Businesses Earth Power IT

Microsoft's Sleep Proxy Lowers PC Energy Use 163

alphadogg writes "Microsoft researchers have slashed desktop energy use with a sleep proxy system that maintains a PC's network presence even when it is turned off or put into standby mode. Microsoft has deployed the sleep proxy system to more than 50 active users in the Building 99 research facility in Redmond, Wash., according to the Microsoft Research Web site and a paper that will be presented at the Usenix technical conference in Boston later this month. ... Sleep proxies allow machines to be turned off while keeping them connected to the network, waking the machines when a user or IT administrator attempts to access them remotely."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft's Sleep Proxy Lowers PC Energy Use

Comments Filter:
  • Wake on Lan? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hedwards ( 940851 ) on Sunday June 13, 2010 @07:55AM (#32556062)
    This is something new? Isn't this basically just wake on lan with an external box? Meaning that rather than having a part of the computer powered on in case the packet to wake up comes through, they're doing it with an external box. I'm a bit curious as to why this justifies any particular coverage.
  • MacBooks, et al (Score:1, Insightful)

    by BoRegardless ( 721219 ) on Sunday June 13, 2010 @07:56AM (#32556068)
    Hmm, now who else has had such a system?
  • Re:Wake on Lan? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jridley ( 9305 ) on Sunday June 13, 2010 @08:18AM (#32556146)

    It probably is, but for instance I can't use WOL because it requires a packet that can't propagate through a router. I've thought in the past about setting up a machine on my subnet that I could poke via HTTP or whatever and make it send the wake packet to my PC, and anyone else could use it too. But since I'm probably the only person on my floor of the building that gives a crap about power consumption, it'd be silly to set up a 2nd machine running 24/7 so that I could turn mine off a few hours a day.

  • by Rockoon ( 1252108 ) on Sunday June 13, 2010 @08:41AM (#32556230)
    Syndrome identified:

    Any feature even remotely similar, but found on Apple products, means that Macs have been doing it 'for some time now' even if what the Mac is doing is just the crap built into the bios of every motherboard made for the last decade, and doesnt solve any of the real problems that this new solution is solving.
  • Re:Wake on Lan? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by caluml ( 551744 ) <slashdot@spamgoe ... minus herbivore> on Sunday June 13, 2010 @08:56AM (#32556306) Homepage

    it'd be silly to set up a 2nd machine running 24/7 so that I could turn mine off a few hours a day.

    Get an HP Thin Client, or similar. Leave that running, it'd draw 8 watts, I think. Then you could SSH to it, and send the WOL packet to your big, beefy 400W PSU box.

  • Re:Wake on Lan? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 13, 2010 @10:25AM (#32556702)

    It's Media Access Control. When you attempt to sound smart, at least know the acronyms you're clarifying.

  • by Rockoon ( 1252108 ) on Sunday June 13, 2010 @10:25AM (#32556704)
    So every user has to install a driver? Even Joe Plumber trying to access your invoice history web server?

    You just dont seem to get it.
  • by Rockoon ( 1252108 ) on Sunday June 13, 2010 @10:35AM (#32556742)

    This means that it's the router that traps a request for your computer, and send a WOL first.

    So then, it doesnt solve the problem?

    Is that router going to wake the machine for pings? Really? Thats gonna save energy... not. Sure, block all pings then? Yeah.. then you can't ping the machine...

    You, sir, are exhibiting the syndrome precisely. You are imagining that the Apple "solution" solves the problem, but it doesnt even come close.

    The apple "solution" just ignores the problem, essentially its Wake On Lan. Big Fucking Deal. Apple has a wireless Wake On Demand. Nobody Fucking Cares because It Doesnt Solve The Problem.

  • by sconeu ( 64226 ) on Sunday June 13, 2010 @11:31AM (#32557040) Homepage Journal

    MAC stands for Media Access Control [wikipedia.org].

    "Machine Address Code" my ass...

  • by louarnkoz ( 805588 ) on Sunday June 13, 2010 @01:36PM (#32557720)

    If you read the fine article, you will see that they acknowledge wake on lan and other similar work. They are addressing a practical problem in large networks. Classic implementations of Wake-on-Lan wake the computer when another computer sends it a packet. This looks fine in theory, "my computer wakes up when it has something to do," but it does not work well in practice, in a large network.

    In any network of a certain size, there is a lot of noise, scans, keep alive traffic. That traffic causes packets to be received frequently, maybe a couple times per minutes. When a computer awakes, it takes some time to put it back to sleep, maybe a minute. Given enough background traffic, the computer never goes to sleep.

    The solution is some form of filter, to only wake up the computer if the incoming data packet is "important." For that, you need a proxy. And the proxy needs a lot of tuning. If it does not wake up on "important" traffic, the users are pissed. If it wakes up too often for trivial pings, the energy bill increases. What they claim here is that after a year of trial, they have validated a particular tuning that works well. Seems interesting indeed.

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Working...