Suspend2 isn't invasive.

Nigel Cunningham nigel at suspend2.net
Fri Dec 1 21:03:48 GMT 2006


(Gah, sorry - resending because I again got the wrong From:, so the list
didn't let the email straight through).

Hi.

On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 08:45 -0600, Travis Watkins wrote:
> On 12/1/06, Hervé Fache <Herve at lucidia.net> wrote:
> > As I said before on this list, one cannot judge suspend2 vs swsusp
> > until they try both, and I did. I started up with a biased stance
> > towards sticking to Linus' tree, but once you've tasted suspend2 it's
> > hard to go back to black screens and no info.
> 
> uswsusp can apparently give you the same thing here.

uswsusp promises to give most of the same things, but much of it is
still just promises.

> > I do believe people that tell me both use the same kernel resources,
> > but it's quite obvious that they use them in different ways. On
> > Dapper, I used to get the suspend2 kernels from Dagobah, and my work
> > machine was hibernated every night. It could not hibernate with stock
> > kernels. Neither could my wife's laptop until Suspend2.
> 
> With the stock kernel did they fail to hibernate or fail to resume?
> Big difference.

One thing that has occurred to me is that Suspend2 generally frees far
less memory / writes a bigger image. This will allow it to work in
situations where swsusp/uswsusp can't free enough memory to be able to
meet their constraints for suspending. It would also account for some
users with one model of computer being able to suspend while others with
the same model can't (different usage patterns).

> > My old laptop (small RAM small swap) could also hibernate with
> > suspend2 thanks to image compression, and the speed was quite good (a
> > few seconds).
> 
> This is a valid use-case for suspend2, I guess.

And it would account for this.

> > I quite understand that Ben Collins has got more than his share of
> > work with the kernel, so I can understand a technical choice and do
> > not complain (please fix that KT400 bug ;-), but please don't tell us
> > swsusp is the same as Suspend2, because it would be the same a saying
> > an old VW Beatle is the same as a Merc.
> 
> Even Nigel says suspend2 and swsusp are the same as far as hardware
> compatibility goes.

Yeah. I think the above is the critical difference - hardware isn't the
only thing that can stop you from successfully suspending and resuming.

Regards,

Nigel




More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list