• DonutsRMeh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Just switched to zswap on my cachyOS install and I can feel the difference. I had freezes where the system chugs when I have several processes running. Now, I don’t get them anymore. Not gonna pretend that I understand everything about them fully, but I searched online and some folks recommended zswap and I went with it.

    • moonpiedumplings@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 hours ago

      In my testing, zram has much, much better compression than zswap.

      The points about LRU inversion, cgroups, and so on are valid, but at the end of the day, I don’t really care. I was able to open as many firefox tabs as I wanted with zram, but I could not do so with zswap, and that’s what matters to me.

      The author of a blogpost is a facebook engineer. Millions of ultra high performance Linux servers are a very different usecase than a single desktop. It’s perfectly reasonable for a solution for one to not be appropriate for the other.

    • SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 hours ago

      What a load of bull. Zram is so much more useful. That guy does not even know you can set up a fallback device for zram. Don’t trust any fool with a blog. Probably written and “researched” with ChatGPT.

      • gartheom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 hours ago

        You should read the article. It has a section specifically on using a zram fallback device and how its performance compares to a similar zswap setup.

  • muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 hours ago

    I never could get a clear understanding of these. I just throw a partition on the nvme for swap as a failover. If it starts to fill, treat it like the countdown timer in uplink.

    • potatoguy@mbin.potato-guy.spaceOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I got corrected some time ago about this, it seems it’s possible, but not advisable. Like, if zram started, zswap will disable itself.

      If you want to test zswap, you could create a swap file, disable systemds zram service and put the zswap variables into the kernel variables, also checking if swappiness is at the normal values, instead of the tuned ones for zram.

  • milagemayvary@mstdn.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    22 hours ago

    @potatoguy

    I use default Debian settings for zram myself, simple setup.

    Never experienced slowdowns, got my Raspi4 using it + utilizing a tmpfs.

    Got a luanti server with the world sqlite data base living on the tmpfs which is very snappy & utilize a mildly complex script that utilizes rsync to copy from ssd to tmpfs at start & only the changes back to the ssd at shutdown.

    Now when you want to do larger tasks that require gobs of space or you’re using nvmes, Ive read that zswap is better.

    • potatoguy@mbin.potato-guy.spaceOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      22 hours ago

      @milagemayvary@mstdn.social

      Yeah, I used zram on the past, it’s really good, but some OOMs and stutters under high memory pressure made me change to zswap with lz4, it’s a very intelligent cache for these high memory use scenarios. But mounting a directory directly to memory is a very needed feature for zswap hahaha.