On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 01:17:42AM -0500, James Antill wrote:
On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 22:21 -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 07:11:47PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 03:02 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > (Humour. This is a genuinely difficult problem and one that inovolves
> > > basically rearchitecting the current implementation)
> >
> > HibernateKit ?
>
> Writing 4 gigs of RAM to swap at 20 meg/sec = 1 minute 25 seconds. I
> don't see much way around this.
Why would you need to do that? I mean I can understand that it's
probably "easy" to do it that way ... but how much harder is it to do:
1. Write all the dirty pages to swap/disk.
2. Drop all the clean droppable pages.
3. write out what's left.
Oh, it probably does like you say. Maybe it's only 2 gigs then. It
still takes on the order of 2 minutes to hibernate, and even longer
than that for resume including swapping back in after the strict
resume part is done. Maybe hibernate-to-flash would be fast enough to
make it worthwhile.
The main reason I hibernate is to save the state of what I was working
on before. Rebooting could be a solution to this if:
- Rebooting is fast enough. This is what this thread is about.
- Applications were written to save state as a matter of normal
operation. Firefox is pretty good at this these days. See also
"Crash-Only Software" [1].
- gnome-session didn't break session saving support, or Fedora didn't
consume the broken GNOME release with
known-to-be-broken-session-support [2], and
we-wont-fix-this-until-the-resdesign-of-session-support-is-done
[3][4].
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash-only_software
[2]
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=552387
[3]
http://live.gnome.org/SessionManagement/NewGnomeSession
[4]
http://blogs.gnome.org/metacity/2008/03/08/session-management/