On Mon, 2023-07-10 at 17:18 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > I agree that making this simpler is a worthy goal, but it's the same goal > in both cases. Not using the hibernation file for swap doesn't gain you > anything.
One of the big problems (pun intended) that was that your swap had to be sufficiently bigger than your RAM to handle whatever the swap file was doing at the time PLUS being able to dump memory into it. In the past, judging that without being wasteful was a bit hit and miss. The usual safety step was to make it *much* bigger than you thought you'd need, which became less of a concern when huge drives came into existence. Though I wonder how things fare, these days, if you went to hibernate and your swap space is currently in extensive use? Suspend had its issues, too. Some devices would switch off power instead of going into a low power mode, and others didn't supply sufficient power to the RAM. -- uname -rsvp Linux 3.10.0-1160.92.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jun 20 11:48:01 UTC 2023 x86_64 Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted. I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list. _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
