| |||||||||||||
LinuxCon: A tale of two bootchartsLinuxCon: A tale of two bootchartsPosted Aug 26, 2010 4:58 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)In reply to: LinuxCon: A tale of two bootcharts by neilbrown Parent article: LinuxCon: A tale of two bootcharts
"Hibernate" seems to be the ultimate core-dump: dump all of memory to the disk, and reload it on power-up. However, I haven't yet used a linux machine where resuming from hibernate was faster than a fresh boot. (Even on Windows, there isn't much difference). The main advantage is that it preserves the state of the system: if I factored in the time to open all the programs I have, reload all documents, webpages, etc, hibernate would be a big win.
Luckily, on my current laptop, "sleep" (suspend-to-ram) works very well, so I rarely do anything else.
(Log in to post comments)
LinuxCon: A tale of two bootcharts Posted Aug 26, 2010 14:30 UTC (Thu) by Fowl (subscriber, #65667) [Link]
<OT>
I've always found hibernate on Windows to be significantly faster than a fresh boot. Perhaps I'm stuck with hardware that is too low end though - 1GB of IO is faster than 4GB of IO shock horror!
Sleep (and "Hybrid Sleep", aka suspend to ram + hibernate) _are_ marvellous, barring any firmware SNAFU's.
|
|||||||||||||