Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability (was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: Suspend2 - Request for review & inclusion in -mm)

["Sebastian Kügler" <sebas@kde.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1484 bytes --]

Hi Pavel,

On Wednesday 28 June 2006 21:53, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Okay, can I get some details? Like how much memory does system have,
> what stress test causes the failure?

The machine has 1GB of RAM, filling it up beyond 500MB, maybe 600MB usually 
made swsusp a problem. I'd need to close apps then to be able to suspend.

Using suspend2 fixes that for me. I can even decide how much memory I want 
suspended, the rest will be reliably discarded. I did a benchmark on two 
similar machines swsusp: would take 45 seconds until resume (that's about the 
same time it takes it to boot normally) suspend2 would take 25 seconds (and 
have warm caches as a bonus). Not having a progress indicator also doesn't 
really help.

Another thing I really like about suspend2 is that I can easily set it up so 
it goes into S3 after writing the image. It would resume much faster then, 
and in case it runs out of battery, I can still 'normally' resume from disk. 
That's incredibly useful, especially since not all devices are known to 
completely switch off during S3, and resuming from S3 is generally known to 
cause problems. I've yet to see suspend2 failing though.

Is such a disk-backed hibernate also possible with (u)swsusp?

Cheers,
-- 
sebas

 http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org |  GPG Key ID: 9119 0EF9 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So many beautiful women and so little time. - John Barrymore


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 483 bytes --]