Hi, On Tuesday 25 April 2006 12:04, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > 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? OK, I'll try to run some tests on a machine with smaller RAM (and slower CPU). > > > 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... Oh, it's not that bad. Adds ~240 lines and removes 75. :-) Greetings, Rafael > > Pavel -- Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy - Benjamin Franklin
