Comment 321 for bug 59695

Revision history for this message
xzirrow (xzirrow) wrote :

Also want to share my researchings .
i have Toshiba laptop A100 - 912

I'd applied ugly fix thru laptop-mode by setting B param to 254 (255 doesn't work at all) . Load_Cycle stopeed ticking but It started to grow temperature .That's scares ... i have /dev/sda: TOSHIBA MK1234GSX: as you can see the SATA disk . SMART shows that 52 C is highest possible temperature for my hdd model . So than -B is 254 , the temperature is from 44 to 50 . I think it's not good at all ...

I've used hdparm -B 128 /dev/sda , and the temperature is going down to maybe 40 C , at least less than 50 . BUT it's started to ticking Load_Cycle again ...

ONLY in ONE combination it works fine !!! (May be it can help some how to solve the problem) Than some process always touching the disk , or script
with smartctl , or some torrent program , seeding torrents . Only in this case is WORKS , -B 128 , No Load_Cycle ticking , No hdd overheating .

But i think it's not the way to look for hddtemperature all day , and seeding torrents (at work for example)
Also i've tried many other ways -
1) i commented strings with $HDPARM in /etc/acpi/power.sh . SATA disk . SMART shows that 52 C is highest possible temperature
at my hdd model . So than -B is 254 , the temperature is from 44 to 50
2) i've "purged" acpi-support , and acpid .
 - No ticking AND STILL hdd overheat . in both cases .
3) I've used to set -B 200 ( or else between 128 and 254 ) - it's OR Load_Cycle ticking , OR hdd overheat always

so as i wrote before, my exploration shows what , desired effect is - B 128 /dev/sda and some process which uses the disk all the time.
it is no ticking , no overheat . How this things connected , i can't realize .

So any opinions ? where i can digg more ?
I have only one idea - than is somehow connected with ext3 . there are some ,intresting keys in laptop-mode.conf . something about SYNC . an REMOUNT with noatime (or something like it)

Hope this would help
P.S. for now i'm trying install debian lenny to see , if it's bug is really fixed as it's described on the top of this thread.