Support and General Use > Hardware
Ipod Video 60GB: Poor battery life under rockbox (2 times less than expected)
penartur:
Here we have 4 possible causes of such great improvement: changes since 3.2, FS#9746, FS#9708 (v0.6, UDMA4), FS#8668; so, it will require at least two another benchmarks just to suspect what could be the exact cause of improvement; and one more to prove it. Unfortunately, i do not have opportunity to measure current from the firewire, so the only way to compare two different builds is to run benchmark again; and that would be very inconvinient for me now, as this ipod is my only player.
After reading this three FS, i would guess that the cause is primarily in changes since v3.2; but such a guess doesn't explain such low running time on v3.2 compared to a numbers from http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/IpodRuntime . However, maybe, the problem was in the way v3.2 handled my 240GB harddrive, and this problem got fixed recently; that would describe both 2x increase with current build and 1.5-2x less running time compared to benchmarks from http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/IpodRuntime .
Just to mention, i haven't changed any settings when upgraded to a current build, everything is configured as it was on 3.2 with 14:30 running time on mp3.
Llorean:
So what's the point in posting battery benchmarks to the benchmark page that are not with official code, and we don't know why they don't work?
You're the only person who can answer these questions, as you're the only person in this situation, so it would be really helpful if you could actually determine where the issue is.
You're welcome to say "I don't want to" but the battery benchmarks aren't particularly useful since they don't reflect the usual user experience, or a "normal" situation for users. And as you've pointed out, without further testing we have no way of knowing whether this low battery life even can exist for normal users using up to date source.
penartur:
--- Quote ---So what's the point in posting battery benchmarks to the benchmark page that are not with official code, and we don't know why they don't work?
--- End quote ---
We know that:
1) On a 240GB with v3.2 running time is very low;
2) On a 240GB with the latest build + patches running time is fine.
I do not see the difference between my results and others posted on that page (e.g. 80GB with CF mod, or other builds with patches etc).
--- Quote ---since they don't reflect the usual user experience, or a "normal" situation for users[/quote
Of course, 240GB now is not a normal situation for users, but, i think, it will be sometime. And it could be helpful for someone even now.
--- Quote ---And as you've pointed out, without further testing we have no way of knowing whether this low battery life even can exist for normal users using up to date source.
--- End quote ---
As i understand, "normal users" are usually using latest release, not the current build?
Maybe i just don't completely understand the purpose of wiki page. What do you say is more for bug report like "without this patch (although seemingly unrelated) i'm getting terribly low battery life". I've thought that wiki page is for the statistics, so that normal users can see how long their ipod will work under certain conditions with the certain rockbox version; and from this point of view, imho, this results could be useful.
Of course, you're welcome to say "wiki page is for something else, and we will not post your benchmarks there", i don't force you to use my results in any way. I've just thought that what i hav already did could be useful for someone.
--- End quote ---
Llorean:
Ones on those page (even with patches) were added when they were believed to be accurate representations of a realistic case.
We've already established that the problem goes away under some unknown conditions, and one of those unknown conditions might simply be "not using old code." So an obvious first step is to find out which patch or condition caused the low battery life.
Especially since the official 3.2 won't work on a 240GB drive, so the lowered battery life only happens if you use an unsupported build.
penartur:
--- Quote ---Especially since the official 3.2 won't work on a 240GB drive, so the lowered battery life only happens if you use an unsupported build.
--- End quote ---
As i understand, current build won't work unchanged either.
However, after your words i'm unsure if the only changes in rmaniac's 3.2 build i've used is:
--- Quote ---Also to allow this drive to work I added/changed these things in the config-ipodvideo.h:
/* Add LBA48 for my 240GB */
#define HAVE_LBA48
/* define this if the device has larger sectors when accessed via USB */
/* (only relevant in disk.c, fat.c now always supports large virtual sectors) */
#define MAX_LOG_SECTOR_SIZE 16384
/* define this if the hard drive uses large physical sectors (ATA-7 feature) */
/* and doesn't handle them in the drive firmware */
#define MAX_PHYS_SECTOR_SIZE 4096
--- End quote ---
so posting my benchmark on v3.2 may be really pointless.
However, i can tell that this is the only change except for patches i've did in my current v3.2 build, so that is realistic case with 240GB. If my latest benchmark will be on the wiki page, people with 240gb ipods and low battery life will just try revision 20878 + patch from rmaniac for MK2431GAH support + FS#9746 + FS#9708 (v0.6, UDMA4) + FS#8668 prior to asking this question here like i did.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version