Messages in this thread | | | From | Nigel Cunningham <> | Subject | Re: uswsusp history lesson [was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: swsusp / suspend2 reliability] | Date | Sun, 9 Jul 2006 10:02:41 +1000 |
| |
Hi.
On Sunday 09 July 2006 09:54, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > > > 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. > > Is there any way to help you? I assume normal swsusp resumes okay so > it is not driver problem?
That's right. I'll see if I can figure it out tomorrow, Lord willing. I have /dev/snapshot in my initrd but it gives that prompt asking for the device name. By the way, will it sit there foreever, or does that have a timeout?
> > > 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. > > Thanks.
No problem.
Nigel
-- Nigel, Michelle and Alisdair Cunningham 5 Mitchell Street Cobden 3266 Victoria, Australia [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |