On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 09:49:18AM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Dienstag 25 November 2008 schrieb Dave Chinner:
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:44:14PM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > Today on one try to hibernate via tuxonice it machine appeared dead.
> > > I am
> > ^^^^^^^^^
> > When (not if) suspend to disk/resume fails, you get to keep all the
> > broken pieces of your filesystem. It works most of the time, but it has
> > some fundamentally broken corner cases that you probably just
> > hit....
> Well I use TuxOnIce for a reason! I had uptimes of up to 70 days with it
> already. And they are usually only interrupted by kernel updates or
> manual shutdowns. I was never convinced by in-kernel solutions for
Sure, though I'm not convinced that TuxOnIce is any better because
it still uses the same fundamental design as the in-kernel ones.
> > I've never had a system that suspends reliably (let alone resumes
> > from the suspend) so it's no real surprise that I don't trust
> > suspend to disk....
> Well I take it as bad luck then, especially since there are no hints that
> XFS had a problem. I am not sure whether the machine really was dead, but
> I can't reproduce what exactly happened. So thats it.
And therein lies the problem. I can't get suspend/resume to work
reliably on anything I own, so I can't do anything about problems
reported as a result of suspend/resume. Hell, I even considered
running linux on my new laptop inside a virtual machine on windows
just so I could have functioning suspend/resume....