Smaller hibernation file == faster hibernation?

[Coldblackice]

Random curiosities regarding Windows 7 hibernation --

1.) If you were to cut your hibernation file size down to the minimum 50% (of physical memory), wouldn't this make hibernation faster than a 100%-sized file, given that the CPU compressing will probably finish much faster than the time it'd take to copy that extra 50% to disk (assuming 12GB+ of physical memory)?

2.) Whether your h-file is 50% or 100%, what happens if everything can't be fit into it, even with compression? Will Windows choose to leave something out? Would hibernation fail?

 

[Tsumi]

I have noticed absolutely no difference in Windows 8 boot/shut down, changing hibernation size to 50%.

 

[GotNoRice]

You should just enable S3/Hybrid Sleep. You get the same power savings as hibernation, but there is no resume time.

 

[pxc]

Sizing it too small wouldn't help anything, and in fact it could cause hibernation to fail. The entire file isn't used each time, as memory is compressed (and encrypted) before being written to hiberfil.sys. The hibernation file size is defaulted to 75% of physical memory, and it's not surprising that you could possibly use a smaller size than that. But the file size itself doesn't have to do with how long the process takes; what's in memory determines that.

MS explains what's going on here: http://download.microsoft.com/downl...EA-470B-A97E-CE7CE0D98DC2/HiberFootprint.docx