Hacker News Reader

Comment by jraph | Hacker News Reader

Hibernating when you have 32 G of requires more than that for swap. That's not negligible on a 512 G SSD.

And copying 32 G is not instantaneous neither. I bet a fresh boot is faster, defeating a big part of the purpose of suspend for me (part of it is finding my workspace where I left it, sure, but also being able to quickly wake up the laptop).

And 64 G laptops are sold now.

View on HN

Yup, I stopped using hibernate when I got a laptop with 32GB of ram. It took longer than a cold boot to come back from hibernate.

systemd supports "suspend-then-hibernate" which I think works now.

That said, systemd fucked the hell out of this feature and then the devs started gaslighting people about it[0][1]. That was on top of the fact that their "fix" broke the setting entirely and when you suspended your laptop it would never resume, guaranteeing a reboot and lost data (which ironically was their premise for "fixing" it in the first place). They really tried to get people to believe that a nearly dead battery 8 hours from now was preferable to hibernating after X minutes and resuming with a nearly full battery. On a motherfucking laptop.

Sigh. Just when I was starting to accept systemd they go and do that shit. Words cannot express how pissed I still am from that github thread and them breaking my laptop from a basic ass fucking system fucking mother fucking fucking upgrade. Fuck systemd.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/zczdnq/systemctl...

[1] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/25269

Wow, I was going to say that I'm tired of this systemd trashing. systemd is a very nice piece of software and does not deserve all the hate it gets.

However, this one is pretty bad indeed. Also, respecting this one setting they had does not seem very complex, I'm not convinced by their way of rejecting the request to restore it.

Seems like the OS should be able to store only the active working memory and silently discard stuff like disk cache when hibernating, so the hibernate would only be slow if you really had the machine seriously loaded up with work. Maybe if you're doing heavy duty video editing? Or VMs I guess.

I wish I had more trust in laptops to properly handle putting itself into S2 when I close the lid, and then after 30 minutes (or if the battery gets low) go down into S3. But I've seen far too many laptops just fail to properly suspend for whatever reason.

On my aging Windows ThinkPad with 32GB of RAM, my hiberfil.sys is ~12GB, so you would be correct. As for S2 moving to S3, this is similar to how I’ve been using the system for years; close the lid and I get S2 or S3 (haven’t looked to see which one)—if the battery charge hits a certain level, the system moves to S4/hibernates.

> That's not negligible on a 512 G SSD.

Yes but in 2023 a 1TB SSD is $40.

> And copying 32 G is not instantaneous neither. I bet a fresh boot is faster, defeating a big part of the purpose of suspend for me (part of it is finding my workspace where I left it, sure, but also being able to quickly wake up the laptop).

How much you need to copy should depend on how much you have open, which should relate pretty strongly to how annoying a reboot is.

> Yes but in 2023 a 1TB SSD is $40.

Depends where you're buying it. If it's soldered to the motherboard of the laptop it's going to be a lot more expensive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com