From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754435AbZEHHML (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2009 03:12:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751959AbZEHHL4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2009 03:11:56 -0400 Received: from mail-ew0-f176.google.com ([209.85.219.176]:33772 "EHLO mail-ew0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752152AbZEHHLz convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2009 03:11:55 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=V1n5Pvy8Mf6T5qkXaU5gSIUV3jeFg1PDCsoBNLDEWHND3ER+7HuDPZGWfsYsJa659y /7+wN59pVD4YehRDZcN+ucE1oRoBFE1hE1ECllxgx4wDGc9W2eATqxHCxVEb9+7GUshl dlIq20V9NjsOfSouwSLs4tMT+8Xo0EGXJp5F0= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090507214645.GB14611@elf.ucw.cz> References: <1241620755-22133-1-git-send-email-nigel@tuxonice.net> <200905071945.45928.rjw@sisk.pl> <200905072022.15202.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090507214645.GB14611@elf.ucw.cz> Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 09:11:55 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [TuxOnIce-devel] [RFC] TuxOnIce From: Fabio Comolli To: Pavel Machek Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Matt Price , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nigel Cunningham , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, tuxonice-devel@lists.tuxonice.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Thu 2009-05-07 20:57:44, Fabio Comolli wrote: ... >> >> Well, if I may jump in I suggest you start with the full-memory image >> functionality. This is in my opinion the biggest advantage in tuxonice >> vs. uswsusp. > > Neither tuxonice nor swsusp can write full-memory image (it is mostly > impossible to do in unlikely case of all memory is consumed by > kmalloc). Now, tuxonice can produce bigger images than swsusp... > Pavel, please. (u)swsusp can save images up to half the physical memory IIRC; with toi I used to easily save 980MB of image on a 1GB laptop. You can't honestly compare the two things. > Rafael had short patch for similar efect some time ago, but we could > not find anyone to really review it... >                                                                Pavel > -- Regards, Fabio > (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek > (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html >