Hi! > > Okay, so it can be done, and patch does not look too bad. It still > > scares me. Is 800MB image more responsive than 500MB after resume? > > Yes, it is, slightly, but I think 800 meg images are impractical for > performance reasons (like IMO everything above 500 meg with the current > hardware). However this means we can save 80% of RAM with the patch > and that should be 400 meg instead of 250 on a 500 meg machine, or > 200 meg instead of 125 on a 250 meg machine. Could we get few people trying it on such small machines to see if it is really that noticeable? > > Is benefit worth it? > > Well, that depends. I think for boxes with 1 GB of RAM or more it's just > unnecessary (as of today, but this may change if faster disks are available). > On boxes with 512 MB of RAM or less it may change a lot as far as the > responsiveness after resume is concerned. > > Anyway do you think it may go into -mm (unless Andrew shoots it down, > that is ;-))? I'd really like to hear that it helps someone before going to -mm. It looks clean enough but still it is 300 lines... Pavel -- Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins.
