On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 05:30:55PM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 10:16:08AM +1000, Andrew Reilly wrote:
> > (*) Speaking of which: why are we considering doing process
> > dumps into a _different_ swap-ish partition, instead of just
> > ensuring that all processes are sleeping in the normal swap
> > partition?  If that was done, then they would just page
> > themselves back in as needed, on wake-up.
> Because swap doesn't work that way anymore.  They days where every page of
> memory had to be backed by disk are long gone.  This means that there may
> not be anywere to put processes which are in memory unless you allocate
> somewhere to save all (or practicaly all) of memory.

But to do the proposed state save to disk, there _must_ be
enough disk space to back all of the process pages.

> In any case, I
> haven't seen many laptops capable of using more then 256MB of RAM which
> isn't exactly much of a modern disk.  My laptop has 256MB of RAM and
> ships with up to a 10GB disk.  I've retrofitted it with a non-standard
> 18GB disk because 10GB looked too small for my needs.  Even with the 6.4GB
> disk it shipped with, the suspend to disk partition is only 4% of my disk.

The issue isn't with the size of the disk storage required, but
with the mechanism.  Why dedicate 256M to a suspend partition, and
invent a new process saving mechanism, instead of making your
existing swap partition 256M larger and using the existing swap

Processes do still wind up in "sleep" state, completely paged
out, don't they?


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to