From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751316AbWGHW2i (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jul 2006 18:28:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751317AbWGHW2i (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jul 2006 18:28:38 -0400 Received: from pop5-1.us4.outblaze.com ([205.158.62.125]:47335 "HELO pop5-1.us4.outblaze.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751316AbWGHW2h (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jul 2006 18:28:37 -0400 From: Nigel Cunningham To: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: uswsusp history lesson [was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability] Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 08:28:33 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , suspend2-devel@lists.suspend2.net, Olivier Galibert , grundig , Avuton Olrich , jan@rychter.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20060627133321.GB3019@elf.ucw.cz> <200607082052.02557.rjw@sisk.pl> <20060708211003.GC2546@elf.ucw.cz> In-Reply-To: <20060708211003.GC2546@elf.ucw.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1287899.4QS5MZ1oan"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200607090828.36834.ncunningham@linuxmail.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --nextPart1287899.4QS5MZ1oan Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline 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=20 yesterday. I'm not sure about LZF though, because I couldn't get it to=20 resume. I'd be interested to see it really be as fast as suspend2 with=20 compression. > > > > Furthermore, I tried to measure how much time would actually be sav= ed > > > > 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 worklo= ad > > > 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 termina= ls > > > 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.= =2E. Sure, but it will mean more if all of the tests are run on the same system,= so=20 I'll have another go at getting uswsusp to resume, when I get the chance. Regards, Nigel =2D-=20 Nigel, Michelle and Alisdair Cunningham 5 Mitchell Street Cobden 3266 Victoria, Australia --nextPart1287899.4QS5MZ1oan Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBEsDGUN0y+n1M3mo0RAt/tAKCdl/QJni37I/JkIXJotHlQ0CMyyACgopWE F+5iHPHm0tcd1V2Zn+7zLh0= =A5gn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1287899.4QS5MZ1oan--