Using the drive as a boot drive is intended behavior. However, this problem occurs even when used as a light duty drive for storing Word documents to access from both operating systems on the internal SSD in dual-boot configuration.
This is interesting. How would we exclude the drive from TLP selective suspend? I’ve had issues with getting a full disable on selective suspend to take hold in the past.
You could add it to the USB_DENYLIST parameter: TLP/tlp.conf.in at main · linrunner/TLP · GitHub
@Be_Far , @ryanpetris got it right. TLP had a number of changes form version 1.4 to 1.5 and in this case what used to be USB_BLACKLIST became USB_DENYLIST. Another thing to check when using TLP is to make sure no other services are trying to do a similar thing. The most common culprit in most distros is power-profiles-daemon. You can either mask this service in slightly older distros or uninstall it in most modern distros, though masking it still works. TLP does everything power-profiles-daemon does along with a long list of additional features it just does not have a simple drop down list and generally needs to be edited preferably in /etc/tlp.d/00-nameofhostorspecialbitofconfig.conf where 00 can be replaced with any number from 00-99 like any other files stuck in a /etc/application-servicename.d directory. This way when TLP updates your config is not overwritten.
This is likely to improve your experience but I believe to have a flawless experience it needs to be coupled with the expansion card having the heatsink in it like it currently does, and you should have a power supply that provides sufficient power under ALL circumstances whihc a 60w supply does not, in fact every 65w rated charger I tested also failed in this aspect. Since the next grouping up was 85w for some hubs I tried those as well and they also do not achieve providing only 65w maximum. All 96w docks I tested successfully provided sufficient power to my 12th gen (maxing out at 75w of draw/i.e. the laptop got whatever it wanted power wise). Also 100w PD chargers (I am using an Anker 737 chragew with 100w PD) should work fine as well.
Since I don’t have an 11th gen I could not test directly and I have not had a confirmed PL2 rating on the 11th gen porcessors in the Framework. With that in hand you should be able to arrive at your own conclusions regarding PD and 11th gen Frameworks. My suspicion is of course that it is just falling short of what it really wants and needs if using the standard Framework charger under heavy load whether it is sustained or very short in duration.
@nadb Thank you. That’s comprehensive, especially the power-delivery piece. It would explain why I am more likely to see the issue when I’m “out and about” with the laptop and running off the Framework 60w brick, or the battery!
At home, I’m running off a CalDigit TS3 dock that was intended to power an Intel-era Core-i7 MacBook Pro, so power delivery is not the problem there, or at least, it really shouldn’t be.
@Michael_Scot_Shappe yeah that CalDigit is rated at 90w I think? So yes, very likely sufficient since the power brick is pretty huge on top of that so attached peripherals dont bump it down. I am guessing issues on battery are probably autosuspend related, while battery/60w PD issues are both.
Just looked it up. 87w (an odd number, but ). So, I suppose I could see even that becoming marginal under heavy load given what you say uptopic about 85w not quite being enough but 96w docks being pretty solid.
@Matt_Hartley I’ve been trying to find a diplomatic way to put this, because I do believe you’re trying to be helpful: Telling people a feature Framework has advertised and actively encouraged for two years, is not actually a feature, doesn’t work. It is, in fact, an advertised, intended feature of the product. If it’s not working, then it’s incumbent upon Framework to find out why and propose actual solutions, no matter how much effort that requires on Framework’s part.
If the solution really does turn out to be “use a bigger brick”, as @nadb suggests, and Framework can explicitly document, “We have tested and a brick providing at least X watts should suffice”, that’s not actually a bad or unacceptable solution, assuming it turns out to be a stable one (I’m going to test the proposition). Higher-wattage chargers are not that hard to come by, now.
But it is not acceptable to say, “Yeah, we told you to do that, but don’t do that.” Because Framework did tell us to do that, is still telling us to do that in its official copy, and even if they didn’t you are the one and only person I know who thinks it shouldn’t work.
Has anyone actually measures how much power these expansion cards draw on idle, normal and high usage?
I use my drive as a media drive for storing files, exactly like you said. But even when the laptop is idle, with no I/O activity going on whatsoever I STILL experience the random disconnects.
Noted. My statement on resolving your issue has been made explicitly clear.
Contact support for your replacement. Your feedback has been noted. I’m closing out this particular as I addressed your concerns directly. We’re now going in circles, and I have other threads to address. A resolution has been suggested and my view on why this isn’t recommended from a support perspective has been explained.
Advice on next steps offered. My opinion from a support point of view was made. If you have additional concerns and would like to resolve this, open a ticket as suggested previously. That’s what we can do.
Please open up a support ticket, we can take a look at what going on from there. I use mine on Fedora and Ubuntu for backups, we can compare the states based on your logs. Sounds like a power saving mode is happening in your case.
All, if you’re having trouble with your storage expansion card, please open a support ticket. This thread is closed as it’s no longer productive and best suited for ticketed support. Thank you.
In a ticket, we can examine your logs and determine if this is a power state issue or a bad card.
A post was merged into an existing topic: 1TB Expansion card randomly disconnecting