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/ -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
