include powercap-utils

[peter.m]

Hi

Can you please include powercap-utils in the base distro? I use this utility to cap the maximum power usage of the CPU, and it's impossible to do it via the sysfs interface (it touches the cpu msrs directly). It's a tiny package, less than 300Kb with it's dependency

Already made a JIRA - https://jira.ixsystems.com/browse/NAS-112649

 

[morganL]

Theoretically, you might be able to enable this via a script at boot-up. It should load before you have any thermal issues.

 

[peter.m]

Theoretically, you might be able to enable this via a script at boot-up. It should load before you have any thermal issues.

That's exactly what i'm doing, but the powercap-set utility is not included in the system by default. I installed it by adding the standard debian bullseye repositories. Hence the request :)

If I make a PR against scale-build, will you accept it?

 

[morganL]

That's exactly what i'm doing, but the powercap-set utility is not included in the system by default. I installed it by adding the standard debian bullseye repositories. Hence the request :)

If I make a PR against scale-build, will you accept it?

If the intit script at bootup works... then please document that... and share it. That's the fast process for resolving the issue.

You've made the "suggestion" to the SCALE team.....if other people vote for it, it will get higher priority. Adding it typically also requires testing, maintaining and documenting it.. We've exited BETA for Angelfish and now moving to the RC phase, so it's not an easy decision. The ability to do things like this through init scripts is how special cases are handled.

 

[peter.m]

If the intit script at bootup works... then please document that... and share it. That's the fast process for resolving the issue.

You've made the "suggestion" to the SCALE team.....if other people vote for it, it will get higher priority. Adding it typically also requires testing, maintaining and documenting it.. We've exited BETA for Angelfish and now moving to the RC phase, so it's not an easy decision. The ability to do things like this through init scripts is how special cases are handled.

Wait, I think there's a misunderstanding here. I am calling the powercap-set utility in the bootup script. This works fine. I am *not* installing it there. While it could be done, I don't think it's a very good idea

At the end of the day, you'll either included it or not. From what I can see, these kinds of requests were honored in the beggining (NAS-109391 being an example). There's nothing to test or document in this instance, just like for fio or iperf3

 

[morganL]

Wait, I think there's a misunderstanding here. I am calling the powercap-set utility in the bootup script. This works fine. I am *not* installing it there. While it could be done, I don't think it's a very good idea

At the end of the day, you'll either included it or not. From what I can see, these kinds of requests were honored in the beggining (NAS-109391 being an example). There's nothing to test or document in this instance, just like for fio or iperf3

If you try it and it fails.. that's a good argument for including it. If it succeeds, you have bought yourself many months and can claim that it works well without issues.

As you say, it might be easy to add, but that an engineerring call and they will look at the number of votes the suggestion gets. Fio and iperf are widely used.

 

[peter.m]

Which is pretty much never. That's ok, I'll fork and build my own iso.