On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 16:55 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 16:16 +0200, Benjamin Berg wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 10:06 -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > This needs to be disabled in systemd, as I mentioned in the previous > > > thread. > > > This means it would still work in GNOME if somebody enables the feature > > > in systemd, as would be expected. > > > > Yeah, I agree that disabling it in systemd by default is likely the > > best way forward for F29. If we can get enough testing, then it may be > > possible to enable hibernation again for F30. > > > > gsd-power has no configuration option to change the behaviour. It will > > simply use SuspendThenHibernate rather than Suspend when the method is > > available. > > Continuing the slight tangent from earlier - why was this preferred to > hybrid-sleep, given that systemd apparently implements hybrid-sleep? > Off the top of my head I can think of only one tiny benefit of suspend- > then-hibernate over hybrid-sleep: after 3 hours it doesn't drain the > battery at all any more. Is that really a big enough benefit to > outweigh the drawback of *always* requiring the slower, much-more- > likely-to-fail 'resume-from-hibernation' behaviour after 3 hours or > more? hybrid-sleep would also seem to address the "hibernate *sometimes* works, but not often enough for us to support it or default to it" problem quite nicely...because it only uses hibernation as a last resort, when power is completely drained so resume from sleep is no longer possible. Think about it this way, we have three choices: 1) simple 'suspend': always uses the more reliable mechanism *unless* you lose power, at which point you have DEFINITELY lost your system state 2) suspend-then-hibernate: always uses the more reliable mechanism for three hours, then *ALWAYS* falls back to the less reliable mechanism. Will be substantially more risky than 1) for any case where the system sleeps for more than 3 hours, but retains power. Will only be safer than 1) when the system sleeps for more than 3 hours, then loses power. 3) hybrid-sleep: always uses the more reliable mechanism *unless* you lose power, at which point it gives the less reliable mechanism a shot. If it works, great! If it doesn't, you are no worse off than under 1). 2) has no advantages over 3) either, so far as I can see, except that if you sleep for a really long time and 'hibernate' actually happens to work on your system, maybe you have a little more battery life left when you resume. I don't see how 3) isn't the winner there, assuming the implementation is good. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ desktop mailing list -- desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
