Re: Hibernation
Heather:
>>Would it be possible to use that under Dosemu+DOS so that you can force which
>>partition is visible as "D:" then do it?
>
> Maybe. But unless you have really good backups you probably don't want to
> try it. Just imagine the bios dumping 100M of data over your favourite file
> system.
The Magio is extremely clear on whether it can, or it cannot, hibernate. I
do not believe that it would attempt any such thing.
>>Comparing enough hibernation volumes, could someone create a linux mktpadswap?
>>Maybe it could encompass or call ext2resize and mkdosfs, and do the whole
>>task - carve off the right amount of diskspace for your ram, get it into the
>>partition table, format it, and put the hibernate volume in there. Easy
>>enough to get -blank- hibernate volumes, just scrap one and recreate it. (Too
>>late for us, but we can save next year's crop of users.)
>
> Maybe. I think that the BIOS looks through the file system structures
> though. It's the only explanation I know of for Thinkpads only supporting
> 64M of RAM for hibernation to HPFS volumes...
I didn't know about that limit - that sucks. That still doesn't make clear
whether the limit is that the file be contiguous, or that it be on a formatted
filesystem.
> >Considering that I pack and unpack a lot, and have my little kit optimized
> >for being on the go, I'm really less than interested in spending a *longer*
> >time on the suspend/resume process, full hibernate feels slow enough as it
> >is. Thus my comment - it *might* be worth it if the linux kernel does all
> >the work, but (IMHO, ymmv) it is *not* worth those scripting tricks and the
> >chance of forgetting.
>
> Same here. I've just got a new Thinkpad and I've put the hibernation
> partition as the first partition to get the best transfer rates and minimise
> startup time.
>
> >(Anybody here using swap-to-ramdisk tricks so they don't need linux swap
> >space on disk at all? Then hibernating would capture your swap too.)
>
> Swap to ramdisk only makes sense on broken hardware (IE hardware where some
> RAM is really slow).
No... it makes sense if you care about speed... and for the fact that even
if you have a Gig of RAM, you can't get rid of swap entirely without getting
mired in molasses. [I am told that the code for dealing with a swapless
system is not real efficient.] Not that I've seen a laptop with a gig yet
- but we tend to have slower CPUs overall, and we're more interested in
making our expensive toy last longer, so maybe we would want all the speed
improvements we can get.
> >Of course it would work, but there's no reason for me to do it, either. My
> >time and sanity are worth more than 100 Mb. I don't feel constrained on a
> >3.2 Gb hard disk - my first Linux laptop had a mere 528 Mb.
>
> I felt constrained with 3.2G.
Different people, different requirements.
> My new Thinkpad has 10G.
In theory any slimline drive should fit, I just haven't considered opening
the case and doing that yet.
> Next thing to do is to buy more RAM (I have 64M but can expand to 288M).
> The hard drive on my new one has a 50% higher transfer rate, so I can have
> 50% more RAM and keep the same hibernation times. Before I had 96M and
> hibernation times were just bearable. Now I can do 128M with ease, or go to
> 192M and be more patient.
Mine is full at 96 Mb and if it were a little faster to hibernate it would
be perfect.
I don't do enough on my laptop to use it up anyway, though I sometimes blow
past the original 32 Mb, so it was worth it to fill 'er up.
> The latest Thinkpads can now handle more than 512M. Mine is only 3 weeks old
> and it's behind the times already!
Keep chasing the bleeding edge, you'll fall off a cliff... :) I guess we'll
see Gigs of RAM soon enough then.
-* Heather Stern * Starshine Technical Services * star@starshine.org *-
Reply to: