Hi. On Thursday 16 March 2006 03:59, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Wed 15-03-06 11:37:11, Stefan Seyfried wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 12:36:31PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Yes, I can do mem=128M... but then, I'd prefer not to code workarounds > > > for machines noone uses any more. > > > > I have machines that cannot be upgraded to more than 192MB and would > > like to continue using them :-) > > Good :-). > > > > 3) Does it still suck after setting image_size to high value (no => > > > good, we have simple fix) > > > > no matter how high you set image_size, it will never be bigger than > > ~64MB on a 128MB machine, or i have gotten something seriously wrong. > > No, you are right, but maybe 64MB image is enough to get acceptable > interactivity after resume? I'd like you to check it. > > (It will probably suck. In such case, testing Con's patch would be > nice -- after trivial fix rafael pointed out). If you could also test suspend2, that would be good. I've gained some renewed motivation for getting it merged, and hearing that it still does better than swsusp + extras would be helpful in building the case for it. Regards, Nigel
Attachment:
pgpzuz0boaxKg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- Faster resuming of suspend technology.
- From: Jun OKAJIMA <[email protected]>
- Re: does swsusp suck aftre resume for you? [was Re: Re: Faster resuming of suspend technology.]
- From: Stefan Seyfried <[email protected]>
- Re: does swsusp suck aftre resume for you? [was Re: Re: Faster resuming of suspend technology.]
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- Faster resuming of suspend technology.
- Prev by Date: Re: [RFC, PATCH 16/24] i386 Vmi io header
- Next by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Expanding the size of "start" and "end" field in "struct resource"
- Previous by thread: Re: does swsusp suck aftre resume for you? [was Re: Re: Faster resuming of suspend technology.]
- Next by thread: Re: does swsusp suck after resume for you?
- Index(es):
 |