Re: uswsusp history lesson [was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability]

[Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@linuxmail.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1645 bytes --]

On Sunday 09 July 2006 07:10, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > It's only too slow on swsusp. With Suspend2, I regularly suspend 1GB
> > > images on both my desktop and laptop machines. I agree that it might be
> > > slower on a
>
> uswsusp is as fast as suspend2. It does same LZF compression.

I agree for uncompressed images - I tried timing the writing of the image 
yesterday. I'm not sure about LZF though, because I couldn't get it to 
resume. I'd be interested to see it really be as fast as suspend2 with 
compression.

> > > > Furthermore, I tried to measure how much time would actually be saved
> > > > if the images were greater than 50% of RAM (current swsusp's limit)
> > > > and it turned out to be 10% at the very last, with compression (on a
> > > > 256MB box with PII).
> > >
> > > I think you'll find that this depends very much on the kind of workload
> > > you have, and how you try to compare apples with apples. If you're
> > > running lots of memory intensive apps (say VMware with a couple of
> > > hundred meg allocated, Open Office writer, Kmail, a couple of terminals
> > > and so on - I'm just describing what I normally run), you'll miss that
> > > extra memory more.
>
> Do you think you could get some repeatable benchmark for Rafael? He
> worked quite hard on feature only to find out it makes little difference...

Sure, but it will mean more if all of the tests are run on the same system, so 
I'll have another go at getting uswsusp to resume, when I get the chance.

Regards,

Nigel
-- 
Nigel, Michelle and Alisdair Cunningham
5 Mitchell Street
Cobden 3266
Victoria, Australia

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]