Bart Samwel wrote:
Note that that should be 254. 255 gives undefined behaviour for lots of
hardware.
254 don't fix the problem (Load_Cycle_Count still increasing).
And check below:
# hdparm -B 254 /dev/sda
/dev/sda:
setting Advanced Power Management level to 0xfe (254)
# hdparm -B 255 /dev/sda
/dev/sda:
setting Advanced Power Management level to disabled
So, I really think that correct is 255. What you think?
Here's a question to everybody here: does the load cycle count increase
quickly *while you're on AC*?
- When I run in AC, Load_Cycle_Count never increase.
- When I run in battery, Load_Cycle_Count increase at least 1 time per
minute. No more than 2 times per minute.
The theory is that nobody works on battery 24 hrs/day, and that HD
power management actually has benefits while working on battery.
We've calculated that with this solution, even with very mobile usage
patterns your drive should live for years. If the load cycle count
increases while you're on AC, then the solution is broken.
Yes, when I'm running in AC, Load_Cycle_Count don't increase in my laptop.
Messias, and in your laptop?
And... Messias can hear this sound when Load_Cycle_Count increase:
<http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=8777&action=view>
This can be a different bug?
If the load cycle count
increases only on battery, then it works as designed.)
You think that is a good idea change "hdparm -B" from 254 to 255 in my
case (/etc/acpi/battery.d/90-hdparm.sh)?
Because when I run as 254, I get:
setting Advanced Power Management level to 0xfe (254)
And when I run as 255, I get:
setting Advanced Power Management level to disabled
Best regards,
Renato
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
