On Fri, 03 Sep 2010, Celejar wrote: > On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 14:32:03 -0300 > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <h...@debian.org> wrote: > > ... > > > That said, I don't trust hybernation. Your data is much safer in the > > long run if you restrain yourself to suspend-to-RAM and shutdowns. > > Can you elaborate on this? I have certainly experienced my share of
Yes. Suspend-to-disk on Linux x86/amd64 depends on fragile operations, and worse, it requires that the hibernation core and some of the more fiendishly complex kernel subsystems never disagree at all on the details. That can easily result in silent, hard-to-track data corruption when code changes. When you're very lucky, it hoses the kernel or the filesystem metadata in a way which can be easily noticed by some kernel assertion, resulting in an OOPS or warnings. If you're unlucky, it can slowly rot away your filesystem or the data inside it. Restoring from an hibernation image also does nasty things to the ACPI firmware. But at least any problems there are much more likely to cause the box to fail to resume entirely, instead of truly evil stuff like silent filesystem or application memory space corruption. > or do you mean the much more serious problem of the hibernation image > becoming corrupted and the system not realizing this? I though that It is not the hibernation image getting corrupted. It is running system state getting corrupted due to bad interaction between parts of the kernel, or outright kernel bugs. Suspend-to-RAM is much easier to get right (and *keep* right), and far less fragile. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100904010633.gb21...@khazad-dum.debian.net
