Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #211561 > unrolled thread

Hibernation takes too long

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Hibernation takes too long Shahryar Afifi <shahryarafifi@yahoo.com> - 2019-07-20 06:50 +0200
    Re: Hibernation takes too long Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> - 2019-07-20 15:30 +0200
      Re: Hibernation takes too long Shahryar Afifi <shahryarafifi@yahoo.com> - 2019-07-20 17:20 +0200
        Re: Hibernation takes too long Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> - 2019-07-21 02:20 +0200
          Re: Hibernation takes too long Shahryar Afifi <shahryarafifi@yahoo.com> - 2019-07-21 02:50 +0200
            Re: Hibernation takes too long Michael Kesper <mkesper@schokokeks.org> - 2019-07-21 05:00 +0200
              Re: Hibernation takes too long Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2019-07-21 16:20 +0200
                Re: Hibernation takes too long Shahryar Afifi <shahryarafifi@yahoo.com> - 2019-07-21 16:40 +0200
                  Re: Hibernation takes too long Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2019-07-21 18:50 +0200
              Re: Hibernation takes too long Anders Andersson <pipatron@gmail.com> - 2019-07-21 20:10 +0200
                Re: Hibernation takes too long Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2019-07-22 16:00 +0200
                Re: Hibernation takes too long Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> - 2019-07-23 10:30 +0200
          Re: Hibernation takes too long Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> - 2019-07-21 04:10 +0200
    [Solved] [Fwd: Hibernation takes too long] Shahryar Afifi <shahryarafifi@yahoo.com> - 2019-07-30 17:50 +0200

#211561 — Hibernation takes too long

Up to 2 Min

amd64
buster
X61
6GB dynamic
6GB swap
swapness 50

I don't know which log file to loo into...

Thank you.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#211564

On 7/20/19 12:43 AM, Shahryar Afifi wrote:
> Up to 2 Min
>
> amd64
> buster
> X61
> 6GB dynamic
> 6GB swap
> swapness 50
>
> I don't know which log file to loo into...
>
> Thank you.
>
What are you using for bulk storage? Your system
has to copy ~12 gigabytes into it. Do the math--is
that the main reason for your wait?

-- 
Carl Fink                           nitpicking@nitpicking.com

Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com.  Reviews!  Observations!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211568

If bulk storage is the same as mass storage, I have 128 SSD

 On Sat, 2019-07-20 at 09:27 -0400, Carl Fink wrote:
> On 7/20/19 12:43 AM, Shahryar Afifi wrote:
> > Up to 2 Min
> > 
> > amd64
> > buster
> > X61
> > 6GB dynamic
> > 6GB swap
> > swapness 50
> > 
> > I don't know which log file to loo into...
> > 
> > Thank you.
> > 
> What are you using for bulk storage? Your system
> has to copy ~12 gigabytes into it. Do the math--is
> that the main reason for your wait?
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211595

If 12GB is reasonable (I have no idea, I don’t use “hibernate” myself) here are figures to input to the calculation:

SSD sustained write transfer rate is between 30 MB/sec and 120 MB/sec.
Closer to 30 MB/sec (or even slower) if it’s a USB-3 thumb drive (even less than that if USB-2); closer to 120 MB/sec if it’s a SATA drive.

So: 12GB/30MB/sec = 6.7 minutes
    12GB/120MB/sec = 1.7 minutes

So 2 minutes is not unreasonable.
Rick


> On Jul 20, 2019, at 8:14 AM, Shahryar Afifi <shahryarafifi@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> If bulk storage is the same as mass storage, I have 128 SSD
> 
> On Sat, 2019-07-20 at 09:27 -0400, Carl Fink wrote:
>> On 7/20/19 12:43 AM, Shahryar Afifi wrote:
>>> Up to 2 Min
>>> 
>>> amd64
>>> buster
>>> X61
>>> 6GB dynamic
>>> 6GB swap
>>> swapness 50
>>> 
>>> I don't know which log file to loo into...
>>> 
>>> Thank you.
>>> 
>> What are you using for bulk storage? Your system
>> has to copy ~12 gigabytes into it. Do the math--is
>> that the main reason for your wait?
>> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211596

Thank you for your insight.
your explanation was helpful.
here is my setup:
X61 with Middleton's bios (SATA 2)
buster amd64
upgraded from strech
cloned from 64GB to 128GB 

At idle, only 1.2 Gb of RAM is occupied, so not all the 12GB should be
moved to SSD.


On Sat, 2019-07-20 at 17:16 -0700, Rick Thomas wrote:
> If 12GB is reasonable (I have no idea, I don???t use ???hibernate???
> myself) here are figures to input to the calculation:
> 
> SSD sustained write transfer rate is between 30 MB/sec and 120
> MB/sec.
> Closer to 30 MB/sec (or even slower) if it???s a USB-3 thumb drive
> (even less than that if USB-2); closer to 120 MB/sec if it???s a SATA
> drive.
> 
> So: 12GB/30MB/sec = 6.7 minutes
>     12GB/120MB/sec = 1.7 minutes
> 
> So 2 minutes is not unreasonable.
> Rick
> 
> 
> > On Jul 20, 2019, at 8:14 AM, Shahryar Afifi <
> > shahryarafifi@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > If bulk storage is the same as mass storage, I have 128 SSD
> > 
> > On Sat, 2019-07-20 at 09:27 -0400, Carl Fink wrote:
> > > On 7/20/19 12:43 AM, Shahryar Afifi wrote:
> > > > Up to 2 Min
> > > > 
> > > > amd64
> > > > buster
> > > > X61
> > > > 6GB dynamic
> > > > 6GB swap
> > > > swapness 50
> > > > 
> > > > I don't know which log file to loo into...
> > > > 
> > > > Thank you.
> > > > 
> > > What are you using for bulk storage? Your system
> > > has to copy ~12 gigabytes into it. Do the math--is
> > > that the main reason for your wait?
> > > 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211598

Hi all,

Am 21. Juli 2019 02:45:39 MESZ schrieb Shahryar Afifi <shahryarafifi@yahoo.com>:
>Thank you for your insight.
>your explanation was helpful.
>here is my setup:
>X61 with Middleton's bios (SATA 2)
>buster amd64
>upgraded from strech
>cloned from 64GB to 128GB

How did you do that?
Afaik it's advised to copy files to SSDs and not copy blockwise (dd) because
layouts can differ very much and performance would suffer.

>At idle, only 1.2 Gb of RAM is occupied, so not all the 12GB should be
>moved to SSD.

The 6 GB of RAM will be moved to the swap partition. That's why swap needs to be >= RAM for hibernating.

The X61 will throttle SSD throughput as it has less bandwidth than modern SATA adapters. So, transferring those 6 GB
will take time...
You could limit memory with kernel boot parameter, e.g. mem=2G
to test, time needed should be approximately a third (but obviously 4GB of RAM would be wasted).

Best
Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211607

> Afaik it's advised to copy files to SSDs and not copy blockwise (dd) because
> layouts can differ very much and performance would suffer.

As long as the filesystem is properly aligned on a 4KB boundary, I don't
think there'll be any noticeable difference.  I highly doubt this
explains the 2 minutes needed to hibernate.

>>At idle, only 1.2 Gb of RAM is occupied, so not all the 12GB should be
>>moved to SSD.
>
> The 6 GB of RAM will be moved to the swap partition.

No, only the occupied part of the RAM, and not even all of it (the
parts that correspond to memory-mapped files (e.g. libraries and
executables)) won't, for example.  So we're likely taking about less
than 1GB in this 1.2GB case.

> That's why swap needs to be >= RAM for hibernating.

Actually, this is neither necessary nor sufficient:
- the RAM can't be saved into the part of the swap already used, so the
  rule should be "the unused part of the swap >= RAM" in order for the
  rule to be sufficient.
- as mentioned about, not all the RAM needs to be saved to swap, and
  furthermore, hibernation usually compresses the data before saving it
  into the swap space, so it typically needs significantly less than the
  RAM (I'd expect a compression in the order of 3x).

> The X61 will throttle SSD throughput as it has less bandwidth than modern
> SATA adapters. So, transferring those 6 GB
> will take time...

1GB/3 is about 300MB, which shouldn't take more than 10s to save.


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211608

What is the proportional size between RAM and swap?


On Sun, 2019-07-21 at 10:19 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > Afaik it's advised to copy files to SSDs and not copy blockwise
> > (dd) because
> > layouts can differ very much and performance would suffer.
> 
> As long as the filesystem is properly aligned on a 4KB boundary, I
> don't
> think there'll be any noticeable difference.  I highly doubt this
> explains the 2 minutes needed to hibernate.
> 
> > > At idle, only 1.2 Gb of RAM is occupied, so not all the 12GB
> > > should be
> > > moved to SSD.
> > 
> > The 6 GB of RAM will be moved to the swap partition.
> 
> No, only the occupied part of the RAM, and not even all of it (the
> parts that correspond to memory-mapped files (e.g. libraries and
> executables)) won't, for example.  So we're likely taking about less
> than 1GB in this 1.2GB case.
> 
> > That's why swap needs to be >= RAM for hibernating.
> 
> Actually, this is neither necessary nor sufficient:
> - the RAM can't be saved into the part of the swap already used, so
> the
>   rule should be "the unused part of the swap >= RAM" in order for
> the
>   rule to be sufficient.
> - as mentioned about, not all the RAM needs to be saved to swap, and
>   furthermore, hibernation usually compresses the data before saving
> it
>   into the swap space, so it typically needs significantly less than
> the
>   RAM (I'd expect a compression in the order of 3x).
> 
> > The X61 will throttle SSD throughput as it has less bandwidth than
> > modern
> > SATA adapters. So, transferring those 6 GB
> > will take time...
> 
> 1GB/3 is about 300MB, which shouldn't take more than 10s to save.
> 
> 
>         Stefan
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211611

> What is the proportional size between RAM and swap?

There's no such thing.
They're both sized depending on your particular needs.


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211613

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 4:50 AM Michael Kesper <mkesper@schokokeks.org> wrote:
> Am 21. Juli 2019 02:45:39 MESZ schrieb Shahryar Afifi <shahryarafifi@yahoo.com>:
> >here is my setup:
> >X61 with Middleton's bios (SATA 2)
> >...
>
> ...
> The X61 will throttle SSD throughput as it has less bandwidth than modern SATA adapters. So, transferring those 6 GB
> will take time...

OP apparently runs a modified BIOS that removes the crippled X61 SATA
and at least enables SATA II. I've considered giving my old X61 the
same treatment. I seriously doubt that the SATA II bus speed is the
bottleneck here.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211634

> I attached a screen shot of read write speed.
> The 2 min hibernation time is when there is little or no contents
> present. If I have many things opened, it would take more.

Also, if the problem is in the time it takes to write the hibernation
data, then those 2 minutes should mostly be spent with a display that
says "blabla ... NN%" where the NN slowly goes from 0 to 100.

IIUC this is not what you're seeing


        Stefan "who has an SSD which occasionally slows down to about
                1MB/s write speed"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211667

And here’s an example where the output media is an SD card:

rbthomas@nuc8:/media/rbthomas/99602c92-f887-4578-b6bc-39c91d49c43c/rbthomas$ dd if=/dev/zero of=tempfile bs=1M count=1024
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB, 1.0 GiB) copied, 0.48058 s, 2.2 GB/s

rbthomas@nuc8:/media/rbthomas/99602c92-f887-4578-b6bc-39c91d49c43c/rbthomas$ dd if=/dev/zero of=tempfile bs=1M count=1024 oflag=sync
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB, 1.0 GiB) copied, 34.044 s, 31.5 MB/s



> On Jul 23, 2019, at 1:19 AM, Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> Here’s an example from one of my machines with a SATA-III SSD and lots of RAM:
> 
> rbthomas@nuc8:~$ dd if=/dev/zero of=tempfile bs=1M count=1024
> 1024+0 records in
> 1024+0 records out
> 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB, 1.0 GiB) copied, 1.77789 s, 604 MB/s
> 
> rbthomas@nuc8:~$ dd if=/dev/zero of=tempfile bs=1M count=1024 oflag=sync
> 1024+0 records in
> 1024+0 records out
> 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB, 1.0 GiB) copied, 4.88158 s, 220 MB/s

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211597

On 7/20/19 8:16 PM, Rick Thomas wrote:
> If 12GB is reasonable (I have no idea, I don’t use “hibernate” myself) here are figures to input to the calculation:
I was just assuming that Shahryar's hibernation
involved backing up the full contents of both
RAM and swap, which would be 12 gb.

-- 
Carl Fink                           nitpicking@nitpicking.com

Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com.  Reviews!  Observations!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211921 — [Solved] [Fwd: Hibernation takes too long]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

By adding the line resume=UUID=2 <follow by swap UUID> in grub file
after GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="quiet
and cloning to another SSD

Thank you all

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web