Advertisement

Reducing the Energy Usage of Office Applications

  • Jason Flinn
  • Eyal de Lara
  • Mahadev Satyanarayanan
  • Dan S. Wallach
  • Willy Zwaenepoel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2218)

Abstract

In this paper, we demonstrate how component-based middleware can reduce the energy usage of closed-source applications. We first describe how the Puppeteer system exploits well-defined interfaces exported by applications to modify their behavior. We then present a detailed study of the energy usage of Microsoft’s PowerPoint application and show that adaptive policies can reduce energy expenditure by 49% in some instances. In addition, we use the results of the study to provide general advice to developers of applications and middleware that will enable them to create more energy-efficient software

Keywords

Power Management Multimedia Content Energy Usage Native Mode Remote Server 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Eyal de Lara, Dan S. Wallach, and Willy Zwaenepoel. Opportunities for bandwidth adaptation in Microsoft Office documents. In Procceedings of the 4th USENIX Windows Systems Symposium, Seattle, WA, August 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eyal de Lara, Dan S. Wallach, and Willy Zwaenepoel. Puppeteer: component-based adaptation for mobile computing. In Proceedings of the 3rd USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems, San Francisco, California, March 2001.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fred Douglis, P. Krishnan, and Brian Bershad. Adaptive disk spin-down policies for mobile computers. In Proceedings of the 2nd USENIX Symposium on Mobile and Location-Independent Computing, pages 121–137, Ann Arbor, MI, April 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fred Douglis, P. Krishnan, and Brian Marsh. Thwarting the power-hungry disk. In Proceedings of 1994 Winter USENIX Conference, pages 293–307, San Francisco, CA, January 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carla Schlatter Ellis. The case for higher-level power management. In The 7th IEEE Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems (HotOS-VII), pages 162–167, Rio Rico, AZ, March 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jason Flinn and M. Satyanarayanan. Energy-aware adaptation for mobile applications. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems and Principles, pages 48–63, Kiawah Island, SC, December 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Fox, S. D. Gribble, E. A. Brewer, and E. Amir. Adapting to network and client variability via on-demand dynamic distillation. In Proceedings of the Seventh International ACM Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, pages 160–170, Cambridge, MA, October 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. James. Official Netscape Navigator 3.0 Book. Netscape Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kester Li, Roger Kumpf, Paul Horton, and Thomas Anderson. A quantitative analysis of disk drive power management in portable computers. In Proceedings of the 1994 Winter USENIX Conference, pages 279–291, San Francisco, CA, January 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yung-Hsiang Lu, Tajana Simunic, and Giovanni De Micheli. Software controlled power management. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Hardware/Software Codesign, pages 157–161, Rome, Italy, May 1999.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thomas Martin and Daniel Siewiorek. A power metric for mobile systems. In Proceedings of the 1996 International Symposium on Lower Power Electronics and Design, pages 37–42, Monterey, CA, August 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rolf Neugebauer and Derek McAuley. Energy is just another resource: energy accounting and energy pricing in the Nemesis OS. In Procceedings of the 8th Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems (HotOS-VII), Schloss Elmau, Germany, May 2001.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Satyanarayanan, Jason Flinn, and Kevin R. Walker. Visual proxy: exploiting OS customizations without application source code. Operating Systems Review, 33(3):14–18, July 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Vahdat, A. R. Lebeck, and C. S. Ellis. Every joule is precious: A case for revisiting operating system design for energy efficiency. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGOPS European Workshop, Kolding, Denmark, September 2000.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    John Wilkes. Predictive power conservation. Technical Report HPL-CSP-92-5, Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, February 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jason Flinn
    • 1
  • Eyal de Lara
    • 2
  • Mahadev Satyanarayanan
    • 1
  • Dan S. Wallach
    • 3
  • Willy Zwaenepoel
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceCarnegie Mellon UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringRice UniversityUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceRice UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations