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.
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.
Just to be super nerdy, here’s an amazingly well-written article on the subject from someone with a lot of credibility: https://chrisdown.name/2026/03/24/zswap-vs-zram-when-to-use-what.html
tldr; prefer zswap
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.
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.
“That guy” works full time as a kernel developer on the Linux memory management.
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.
i prefer ram