[ohm] Hmm... I have a dull feeling...

[David Weinehall]

On fre, 2007-05-18 at 15:13 +0100, ext Rob Taylor wrote:
> Apologies for the lateness of this reply, its been sitting unsent in my
> drafts folder for ages...
> 
> Nils Faerber wrote:
> > Rob Taylor schrieb:
> > Kimmo Hämäläinen wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 20:18 +0200, ext Nils Faerber wrote:
> > [...]
> >>>> What does that mean?
> >>>> That means that the general idea of OHM is good. But the real goal and
> >>>> the way to that goal is still too vague to raise interest. The current
> >>>> idea, if I got that right, is "to somehow use HAL", to "have some policy
> >>>> daemon" with "some plugin interface" and some still quite mysterious
> >>>> policy descriptions.
> >>>> Also the use cases, though being a nice start, are for my taste a little
> >>>> too specific already.
> >> Yep. I think the idea of having a system hardware policy manager  with
> >> pluggable policy is a useful idea, but atm we don't have enough of an
> >> idea of the tasks that it would be involved in to solidify the idea.
> > 
> > OK, then let's ask the people who do know better.
> > In my previous mail I mentioned a list of projects that I would be
> > willing to contact about their ideas, focus, experience, requirements.
> > 
> > What do you think about that list? Any more to add?
> > That should hopefully help us then to have a clearer idea of the tasks.
> 
> The list looks good to me. Like I mentioned before, I'd like to get some
> input from big-iron guys, but that's really not my area either. I think
> David Weinehall mentioned something about that in the OHM talk at
> FOSDEM. David do you have any pointers?

Not really.  I had a brief chat with some people from Google at OLS last
year and they mentioned that with the amount of servers they had, they
really needed some way of handling system wide power management.
I think a gentle prod in their direction might be the right way to get
the needed input.

[snip]


Regards: David