Suspend2 isn't invasive.

[Nigel Cunningham]

Hi.

On Sat, 2006-12-02 at 19:00 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Nigel Cunningham 
> 
> | 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 just coded usplash integration (again) for uswsusp, so the progress
> bit is covered.  It already has image compression and encrypted
> images.  It supports suspending to files, it supports aborting a
> suspend which has started.  It does not support arbitrary plugins, but
> the code is simple enough that adding any hooks which are missing
> seems easy enough.
> 
> So, I'd say it's on feature-parity with suspend2.

Ok. That's quite a lot of progress since I last checked. When you say
suspending to files, do you mean to swapfiles or to ordinary files? Does
it support multiple swap devices now?

> | 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).
> 
> There's nothing inherent in uswsusp's design which makes it have to
> try to free lots of memory.  At least, nothing I could immediately
> see?

The maximum image size of 1/2 of memory.

Regards,

Nigel