On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 04:16:30PM +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote: > On 15/07/07, Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Swap to file is not as fast, and I have the feeling that restore may be > > at too low a level to use it. There are some options on where the > > suspend data is written, I'm sorry I can't recall the details other than > > the fact that you can control that. Look for a boot option or something. > > > > This came out of a discussion I initiated regarding a restore requiring > > booting the same kernel that was suspended. The consensus was that that > > might not be true in the future, restoring whatever was suspended was > > possible if desired. > > > > Well, I'm convinced then. Two swap spaces it will be. Does anyone see > anything wrong with 2.5 GB of swap space for a machine with 2 GB of > physical memory? I know the old adage of RAM*2.5 however, in the days > that adage was made, machines did not have 2 GB of physical RAM. In > fact Physical+swap didn't even get to 1 GB. I only want the swap so > that the machine will have a place to put the RAM when I suspend. This > machine also has 256 MB of video RAM, that I understand must be stored > as well, that's why I'll allocate 2.5 GB. Do not access drives under an OS that were in use in the other suspended one, or you risking losing all your data. -- lfr 0/0
Attachment:
pgpXmgFzC4U2w.pgp
Description: PGP signature
