I have been setting up Zram, Swap, Swappiness and EasyOOM daemon on 16gb ram boxes, or lower. Someone asked me about 32gb of ram, or more, and I’m unsure. Wondering if others have experimented with this!

    • ISO@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s shit info. zram is actually better, more so with high ram size+high usage situations.

      • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Anything you’d like to dispute specifically or we should just take your “it’s shit” over a detailed explanation?

        • moonpiedumplings@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 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.

          Copied from my previous comment about this where ISO also gave a similar reply and was met with a similar response lmao.

          • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            40 minutes ago

            It’s not the opinion itself, it’s just the attitude. Your comment is a perfect example of what I consider a good reply as you brought both hard data and some nuance in expressing how you formed your opinion

        • ISO@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Alright, I will only reply to you, since you raised a fair question.

          First of all, I must admit that I thought what was linked was an earlier similar writing, but the general theme is still the same.

          The problem with the writing is that it focuses on use-cases like Android and some servers, but doesn’t take into account other use-cases. It also seems to come with the assumption that setup is done by the distributor only, or if it’s done by the user, it’s a configure-and-forget situation.

          What he represents is:

          • Limited RAM space
          • Swap will always/often happen (outside of (z)ram)
          • Single tier of non-RAM swap
          • Non-ram swap is significantly slower
          • OOM can be preferable over (outside of ram) swapping
          • Swapped out pages stay where they are until they are required by their process (important).

          Now let’s look at a possible modern workstation setup:

          • Large RAM size
          • Swap is rarely hit, especially if set up with zram.
          • Multiple swap tiers beyond zram/zswap
            • Intel Optane disk used as a super-fast zram write-back device, or a high-priority swap
            • Fast NVME disk used as a second tier swap disk
            • Large HDD swap partition used as a third tier swap disk
          • The biggest consideration is avoiding worst case latency, i.e. hitting HDD swap.
          • Killing processes MUST be avoided, unless exceptional circumstances are hit where the kernel’s OOM would kick in anyway. This holds true even when HDD swap starts getting used.
          • When unusual loads are observed, swapped pages can be moved around by the user (or a tool), by turning swap devices off and on. This is how you can empty the HDD swap partition for example.

          This last point in particular should make it clear why his “imagination” was rather limited in his LRU inversion section.