Related
I tried Battery Status, but it gave me strange results - for example battery drain with full brightness was less then with screen off (tested many times).
Could you recommend any really working application?
Make a dummy battery with contacts that align with those in the phone, and connect this to the phones battery via lengths of wire about 12" long.
Use a current clamp (I use a Fluke i30 for low current measurement) then sample the current ten times a second for one minute and average the results out to derive the current consumption - its not difficult really, and this method is far more accurate than software running on the phone - Mike
Can someone tell me what ideal settings they have found for setcpu, particularly in the advanced tab? I would like to play around with the Sampling Rate, the Up threshold and Power Save Bias.
I know it is some what ROM and Kernel specific but a push in the right direction would be helpful.
I am running S3VO ROM by Deck and I am using NetArchy 3.7.8b.
Thank you very much!
I'm also interested in this!
Moto Droid running ChevyNo1's SS 4.6 Froyo ROM and his newest ULV 1.25ghz kernel. My battery life isn't bad but wondering if it could be better.
Also wondering if this would help fluidity on my homescreen scrolling. If i keep the min @ 250 the scrolling is choppy (presumably because the ondemand scaling doesn't increase from 250 fast enough to handle it) but if I keep the min @ 400 then it runs much smoother. Does anybody know if the Sampling Rate or Up Threshold would affect this?
I don't know a whole whole lot about it, but I'm pretty sure the Sampling Rate determines how often the cpu load is checked and the Up Threshold is the load required before it will clock up or down. I don't know too much about the other two and haven't played with them too much. Higher sampling rate and higher up threshold should conserve battery theoretically, but the 20 second upper limit is way too long without checking cpu load, so be careful there. I use 50000 (half a second) with a 90 up threshold personally to conserve a little battery but mainly so I don't lock up my phone when turning the screen on (245 frequency limit while screen is off). I'm no expert, but that's what I've seen from my experience. I'd like to know what others have to say as well.
axlebot said:
I don't know a whole whole lot about it, but I'm pretty sure the Sampling Rate determines how often the cpu load is checked and the Up Threshold is the load required before it will clock up or down. I don't know too much about the other two and haven't played with them too much. Higher sampling rate and higher up threshold should conserve battery theoretically, but the 20 second upper limit is way too long without checking cpu load, so be careful there. I use 50000 (half a second) with a 90 up threshold personally to conserve a little battery but mainly so I don't lock up my phone when turning the screen on (245 frequency limit while screen is off). I'm no expert, but that's what I've seen from my experience. I'd like to know what others have to say as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very good advice ... I have seen slightly improvement on putting this into my settigns...
axlebot said:
I don't know a whole whole lot about it, but I'm pretty sure the Sampling Rate determines how often the cpu load is checked and the Up Threshold is the load required before it will clock up or down. I don't know too much about the other two and haven't played with them too much. Higher sampling rate and higher up threshold should conserve battery theoretically, but the 20 second upper limit is way too long without checking cpu load, so be careful there. I use 50000 (half a second) with a 90 up threshold personally to conserve a little battery but mainly so I don't lock up my phone when turning the screen on (245 frequency limit while screen is off). I'm no expert, but that's what I've seen from my experience. I'd like to know what others have to say as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sampling Rate – An interval (in microseconds) at which the governor will poll for updates. When this happens, the governor will decide whether to scale the CPU up or down.
A microseconds is a milionth of a second .. => half a second is 500000 microseconds not 50000
Hello.
The battery reading is constant 36.8°C, im used to that. Anyway, yesterday i was observing the terminal while charging the battery to see whats going on with adjusting mAh and units, and noticed that aux0 value from ds2746 is getting lower as the battery gets warmer.
so i stuffed the digital thermometer probe under the battery and made a few notes while heating ans cooling the phone:
aux0....temp
268.....27,8
343.....20,2
365.....18,3
390.....15,5
then i played with the numbers a bit and got this:
546 - aux0 *0,1 = temp (close value)
it was a crappy cheap thermometer so the values could be wrong. should repeat the measurment with more acurate thermometer and make more than 4 notes....
Could the kernel be moded so the temperature reading would be from the upper formula?
Edit:
it's 596 - aux0 * 0,1, that should show the same as in WM
Thanks for the research! I've been meaning to do this for quite a while, but haven't. Out of curiosity, I have two questions:
a) What battery do you have?
b) What is aux1 reading for you?
aux1 jumps arround from 61 to 67 right after boot. After that its quite stable. 64 when charging, 62 when not charging.
Batteries are one 1350mAh and one dissassembled, using the controller with random battey packs, currently 750mAh
I'll update the kernel to use your data:
Temp C = (596 - aux0)/10.
I'll make the 596 a new kernel parameter: temp_calibration = 596.
If you come up with a better equation, please let me know.
The kernel will do integer math, not floating point, and it reports tenths of degrees, so with your equation it's simply C*10 = 596 - aux0, which is nice.
I wonder if perhaps the value HTC intended was 600?
It's a small difference, 596 just came from measuring, an the thermometer isn't pin point acurate. 600 should make less than 0.5C difference.
Okay, I just pushed the kernel change.
New kernel parameter, temp_calibration = 600.
Temp (C) * 10 = temp_calibration - aux0.
Coming soon to a kernel near you.
Thank you again V3rt!g(o) for the data.
Ok EVO nation!
Here's my scenario. I'm running a fresh flash of MikFroyo 4.5 and Netarchy's 4.2.2. cfs nohavs. With almost nothing else running on the phone.
So far I've seen a the stand-by battery drain hover around 100-180mA, with an occasional dip into the 50's. The CPU usage is always just below 10%.
I've seen references all over the forums about users claiming low 40's and idle CPU usage around 3% and I'm wondering WHY I'm not able to achieve the same thing.
Now I've done all of the standard battery tweaks, tried various kernels, and can remember a time last fall when one kernel I flashed seemed to give me incredible battery life.
So...Let's hear what your average stand-by battery drain and CPU usage is.
(And any thoughts you might have about my battery situation)
Get 4.3.2 with more havs. It'll drop the voltages nice and low. When I had mikfroyo with netarchy 4.3.2 with setcpu screen off at 128mhz I had about 30-40 idle drain.
Sent from my (insert daily ROM name here) Evo 4g
I wouldn't worry too much about your idle current draw unless you're having a battery drain problem. The issue with the current draw methodology is it's taking the current consumption that instant in time. Unfortunately, you can't monitor instantaneous current draw without affecting the reading itself.
If you idle for an hour or two (or 5), and your battery only goes down 0-1%, i'd say you're in good shape. Also, it helps if you specify what software you're using to monitor these values with? Mine is based on Battery Monitor Widget (bmw).
Edit: There's more to cpu tweaks than just kernels. Along with kernels, there are governors, and then there are governor parameters. Each will directly affect your battery consumption and cpu load.
I'm definitely having a battery drain problem. At idle, it's falling 3-4% per hour, according to the Battery Monitor Widget.
I've got SetCPU set to 128min/998 max with Conservative scaling, and I've one profile enabled for Screen off settings of 128min/128max.
I did notice that when I try to set the min cpu to 128, the clock speeds jump all over the place. But if I set the min cpu to 245 it quiets right down.
Perhaps I a have CPU that's become finicky?
fsmith3x said:
I'm definitely having a battery drain problem. At idle, it's falling 3-4% per hour, according to the Battery Monitor Widget.
I've got SetCPU set to 128min/998 max with Conservative scaling, and I've one profile enabled for Screen off settings of 128min/128max.
I did notice that when I try to set the min cpu to 128, the clock speeds jump all over the place. But if I set the min cpu to 245 it quiets right down.
Perhaps I a have CPU that's become finicky?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I had an issue similar to this where my battery would drain quicker than usual when the CPU min was set at 128 and having a screen off profile of 128/128. I think the problem stems from just setting the CPU way too low and having it use more power to bring the phone 'up to speed'. From my personal experience, I think you'll still be just as good setting your mins to 245, but by all means you're more than welcome to continue experimenting with 128
First off, you need to determine if you have a wake lock issue. Use "spare parts" to see. Look in the battery history, partial wake lock section. It will show you what programs are causing wake lock, and what amount of time they are in a state of wake lock.
Example, my phone was last off the charger 42 hours ago (awake time 7h36m), battery still at 32%, and should last the remainder of the day so long as I don't do too much data. My two biggest wake lock listings are Android system at 1h26m, and my email at 20m.
All it takes is 1 misbehaved program, or even a particular setting within a program to cause wake lock. If that is the cause, then regardless of what your sleep settings are, the phone will still draw the battery down quickly.
You can also look in "/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/stats" at the time_in_state file using a text viewer/editor. It will show how much each cpu frequency is being utilized. I don't recall what unit it's in. But the point here is that if your 128/245 Mhz values are lower than your upper mhz values, something is not right.
The governor parameters will control how much cpu swing is occurring under various load. That is, if you're reading an email, there's little reason for the cpu to be pegged at 998mhz. These parameters control the thresholds (contingent upon which governor is used) at which the cpu scales up or down.
Edit: Each value in time_in_state represent 10ms, or .01seconds. So multiple each value below by .01 to get actual time in seconds. If you notice, the total time in us equal to my awake time of 7h36m, not total uptime.
Mine looks like this
Code:
Mhz cycles seconds
128000 1264017 12640
245000 201083 2011
384000 72728 727
422400 4 0
460800 133450 1335
499200 0 0
537600 72174 722
576000 53479 535
614400 78771 788
652800 38230 382
691200 0 0
729600 87258 873
768000 29579 296
806400 98273 983
844800 18476 185
883200 0 0
921600 599503 5995
960000 0 0
998400 2821 28
Total 2,749,846 27,498
27498seconds = 458min = 7.63h or 7h37m.
gpz1100 said:
Example, my phone was last off the charger 42 hours ago (awake time 7h36m), battery still at 32%, and should last the remainder of the day so long as I don't do too much data. My two biggest wake lock listings are Android system at 1h26m, and my email at 20m.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
gpz1100, Please describe your setup and usage. I'm curious to know how you're getting that kind of battery life.
Anyway....
Good morning gang!
I gave this a couple of days for the fresh install to settle in, and hopefully let it learn how to use the battery more efficiently. But it's still a power hungry beast.
Yesterday I calculated it's use ate 3.9% an hour, based on battery % / time unplugged.
Mind you, I made 2 short phone calls yesterday, and checked my Exchange mail a few times throughout the day. No Angry birds while I'm trying to sort out batter life.
It's still using 100-150mA in standby, and it seems like the governor (SetCPU) is working like it should.
Right now the battery is at 97% and has been off the charger for 1.5 hours. That's 2% an hour. Which isn't bad, but I doubt the average will be that low by the end of the day.
For those of you who like numbers, here's some stats for you. Do you see anything that raises any red flags?
Looking at Spare Parts, in the wake lock section, I see these values.
Android System: 9m9s
UID 10020: 54s
Facebook: 39s
Voicemail: 30s
Mail: 14s
Maps: 11s
Tasker: 9s
WidgeLocker: 6s
Other Usage...
Running: 36.1%
Screen on: 16.7%
Phone on: .9%
Wifi On: 100%
Wifi Running: 100%
The values from my 'stats' file:
128000 0
245000 84095
384000 20371
422400 9
460800 0
499200 127
537600 4743
576000 100
614400 9
652800 75
691200 4238
729600 0
768000 23
806400 1358
844800 2439
883200 0
921600 0
960000 976
998400 18361
1036800 0
1075200 0
1113600 0
1152000 0
1190400 0
1228800 0
1267200 0
fsmith3x said:
gpz1100, Please describe your setup and usage. I'm curious to know how you're getting that kind of battery life.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My setup is as described in the sig. The only additions would include custom conservative governor settings of 80/55/10 % on the up/down/freq steps thresholds; min/max cpu of 128/921 Mhz respectively. I don't use setcpu, tasker, or anything similar. Background updates is on, but nothing is checked (no gmail, facebook, etc.). I used to have email push enabled (using k9 mail), but decided to turn off push altogether, and just poll the server manually when I need to check email when away - little reason to getting emails as they come in if I have access to a computer at the same time.
I have found that even with wifi, the quality of your voice signal drastically affects battery life. I'd say I have average signal, (3-4 bars most of the time) for voice. However, sprint provided an airave because data speed is terrible here. A byproduct of the airave is it provides excellent voice signal. So, just with that in place, consumption while the phone is sleeping/idling is reduced by a good 10-20% over connecting to the tower directly. I'd say most of my usage is voice, some texting/emailing, and on occasion, heavy browsing. No games or videos, no facebook/twitter. It's hard to quantify use, but I think that's the bulk of it.
Yesterday I calculated it's use ate 3.9% an hour, based on battery % / time unplugged.
Mind you, I made 2 short phone calls yesterday, and checked my Exchange mail a few times throughout the day. No Angry birds while I'm trying to sort out batter life.
It's still using 100-150mA in standby, and it seems like the governor (SetCPU) is working like it should.
Right now the battery is at 97% and has been off the charger for 1.5 hours. That's 2% an hour. Which isn't bad, but I doubt the average will be that low by the end of the day.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What you need to keep in mind, is that unless you're using an sbc kernel, your battery may or may not stay above 90% for too long after being removed from the charger. Unfortunately, battery consumption is not constant. Demand on the battery is changing depending on what the phone is doing. Also, 1.5 hrs really isn't a large enough time period to draw an accurate average from. Based on your cpu usage below, it indicates your device was actually on for 22 min.
Your wakelock numbers don't look bad, but the data is inconclusive. The question is, when these readings were taken, what was the up time, and what would you say was the time with the screen off (rough estimate is the diff between uptime and awake time). Leaving wifi on is a good idea, as it draws much less energy than using 3g.
One number that does seem surprising (assuming total run time of 1.5h's since removed from charger) is your running % of 36.1%. If the phone was not used during this time, that seems excessive. In fact, looking at the next value, screen on - 16.7%, would suggest that 20% of the awake time was when the screen was off.
I would start by disabling or uninstalling(if you use titanium backup, the FREEZE) tasker and widgetlocker. Running % - screen on % = % of time spent not sleeping even though the screen is off - things like receiving email, performing weather updates, etc...
All since I got my watch active 2 during the automn 2019 the puilse measurement has been extremely unreliable. I have tried a total reset of the watch and also been hoping that there is a SW error that will be fixed in next firmware update (but there ARE no updates).
I have also read on the web and experimented with where on the wrist to carry the watch. Nothing helps. During sleep it often gives "OK" readings and most of the times also if I watch TV or work at the office. However. part of the whole idea of having a "Galaxy watch ACTIVE 2" is to use it during training and as a fitness tracker. A few examples from the last 48 hours.
1) Watches TV and I know that the pulse is somewher between 55 and 70. All of a sudden during a period of maybee 10 minutes the watch says my pulse is around 140.
2) At the gym. Doing squats (5 repetitions/set). The watch gives a max pulse of 210 bpm (real valute is somewhere between 100 and 120).
3) Goes and to some hight intensity interval training, real pulse 170 -180 in the peaks and in bestween 150 - 160. Watch says 82 - 94. AFTER doing the interval training when stretchingh the watch all of a sudden (this is 5 minutes later) starts to say 150- 160 as pulse but by then the real pulse is around 80.
The real measurements above is measured both by "pulse-band" around my chest and with the cycle (samre readings) and that is also what a manual count shows.
SO: The watch gives sometimes MORE than 100% error which make "pulse zones" completely useless. IT also adds an extra dimension of uselessness that it is not even consequent in the way that a higher reading corresponds to a higher actual pulse.
Question:
Are your GWA2's equally useless when it comes to measuring pulse during activity?
Are you using continuous hr monitoring?
Actually, I have tested mine compared to a professional blood pressure monitoring device and both heart rate and blood pressure (BP lab app) were pretty close.
I cannot confirm tho that it gives good results throughout the day, only when tested. Some times I find the peak values of the day to be high enough, yet I am a guy with high resting hr, compared to other people.
Sent from my CLT-L29 using Tapatalk
thanito said:
Are you using continuous hr monitoring?
Actually, I have tested mine compared to a professional blood pressure monitoring device and both heart rate and blood pressure (BP lab app) were pretty close.
I cannot confirm tho that it gives good results throughout the day, only when tested. Some times I find the peak values of the day to be high enough, yet I am a guy with high resting hr, compared to other people.
Sent from my CLT-L29 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi and thanks!
Yes I use continous HR monitoring.
Mine often gives accurate HR readings if I try when sitting still at my desk or just testing in the kitchen. It is during activity it is extremely unreliable. Did you test at any time during any type of excercise?
(mine is sometimes unreliable even when sitting still or watching TV but in thoose case the "normal" is that it gives correct measurements on HR)
Hi, I handled it in to Samsung and a few weeks later I got it back, they said some hardware was bad and had been replaced (so I lost the info in Samsung Pay and the LTE-connection). Reinstalled everything and started using it for training.
While stretching it constantly showed a puls between 140 and slightly above 160 (actual pulse was below 70). Did thereafter some training with cycle indoors and did intervalls and then Watch Active 2 said the pulse was aorund 90 BPM (actual value here was from 160 to 178 in thoose intervalls).
That leaved me with a "fitnesswatch" that only gives correct readings when watching Netflix so I have now handled it back to Samsung and claimed my money back. There is a lot of good things to say about the watch but there is a limit to how bad a key function of a product can be.
I would still be interested to see if other people have made it work fine during training or not.
BR