Re: Hibarnation / lphdisk / Destroyed MBR (solved)
The swsusp Patch works perfectly in my homemade 2.4.20 and 2.4.19 for almost a
it is already included in the 2.5 tree.
in my case it even suspends pcmcia cards flawlessly if you don't change them
while the computer is suspended.
don't know why there aren't more people using it.
I must add though that my hardware is pretty simple and standard as its a
Clereon 366 noname notebook with pretty much standard parts.
On Thursday 13 February 2003 21:19, Cesar Rincon wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 00:50, mi wrote:
> > Hi Nils Anders, Ceasr and whoever's interested !
> Thanks a lot for the information. It is pretty much what I expected. I
> think I won't bother with hibernation yet --not with BIOS hibernation
> anyway. If my machine behaves as yours, I can reboot faster than a
> suspend/resume cycle :-/
> > Amazing was the comparison to the new-installed Win2000 (with an empty
> > word doc ): 10 | 10.
> > This is definiteley another mechanism, though.
> > It doesn't show up the BIOS hibernation screen at all.
> > Waking up by pressing the power button starts up grub as uusual !
> > Then, after choosing Win2000 from the bootmenu,
> > it reinitializes the session very quick (else needs about 3 minutes to
> > come up).
> > btw. In Win2000 there's is a menu chooser for hibernation which shows up
> > the amount of free spacce on C: compared to the needed space for hib.
> I'm almost sure that W2K implements hibernation in its kernel, bypassing
> the BIOS. There is a project for doing the same on Linux:
> There are a number of advantages with this approach:
> - You couldn't care less if the BIOS supports hibernation, or does so
> in a broken, stupid fashion (my laptop's case). Actually, you should
> not even need APM/ACPI, except for powering down without user
> - You do not need to waste disk on a hibernation partition/file. It
> uses the swap space for hibernation.
> - Suspending/resuming is much faster: you do not need to write to disk
> pages already swapped out, nor restore them on resume; and you do not
> need to dump memory that is not in use.
> The page includes patches for kernels 2.4.10 and 2.5.1 (among other,
> older, versions). I don't know if it would work on a debianish 2.4.18
> or 2.4.20, but I think I'll give it a go when I can spare some time.
> That could mean a long wait, though; and it may not work at all, or
> break other stuff. It still looks quite experimental.
> Anyway, if someone tries it before (hint, hint, Michael :-), I would
> *greatly* appreciate a full account of the adventure.
> Best regards,