Hi,
On Monday, 18 September 2006 12:01, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > I think performance shouldn't be hurt, since we're still batching
> > > pages 1% at a time, down from 20%. A normal image has 10's of
> > > thousands of pages (mine 512M laptop is ~55000 pages, for example) so
> > > 1% is still~500 pages or ~2M at a time.
> >
> > I don't know to if it would impact performance, somebody else
> > should think a bit more about that maybe. The option (early writeout) is
> > configurable however, so people can shut it of if they think it slows
> > writing down.
> >
> > The patch looks OK to me.
>
> Well, patch does not look too bad to me, but...
>
> "It is an option, so it is not important to get it right" is ugly. It
> would be nice to actually benchmark this,
Agreed.
> and hardcode the option that provides acceptable performance...
That would be difficult, because it changes substantially from one machine
to another (depends on the CPU speed, hard disk speed etc.).
But I think it only is useful with splash, isn't it? If so, we can hardcode
something reasonable that will be used if splash_param is set and
won't be used at all otherwise.
--
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
R. Buckminster Fuller
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Suspend-devel mailing list
Suspend-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/suspend-devel
