Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ZRAM Might Finally Be Moved Out Of Linux Staging

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ZRAM Might Finally Be Moved Out Of Linux Staging

    Phoronix: ZRAM Might Finally Be Moved Out Of Linux Staging

    The zRAM Linux kernel module that aims to increase Linux's performance by avoiding paging to disk and optimizing to use a compressed block device in RAM, may finally leave the Linux kernel staging area and be promoted to main. This code that mostly benefits users with limited amounts of system RAM has become quite mature and is becoming widely adopted, which in part is why it's trying to be promoted out of the staging area...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQzNjY

  • #2
    juntaDados and zRam

    juntaDados GNU/Linux uses zRam, BFS process Schedule and BFQ IO schedule by default. We see huge performance gains in any scenario.

    Comment


    • #3
      ZRAM has worked very well for me for swap. I tried turning it off on a machine a few days ago in order to switch to the newer frontswap/cleancache/zcache with a recent 3.10 kernel. Unfortunately, the machine started using up memory like crazy in the middle of the night while a VM was doing a full disk backup, and I started getting the OOM killer kicking in after 14GB of swap filled up. I read there are still some issues with frontswap/cleancache/zcache and tmem getting reclaimed and went back to ZRAM. ZRAM seems very stable and has the added benefit of compressed swap pages.

      Comment


      • #4
        We see huge performance gains in any scenario.



        Comment


        • #5
          Name?

          ZRAM? zram? zRAM? zRam?

          What is the real name of this?

          Comment


          • #6
            This is really interesting to me, because a combination of zRAM, the removal of X.org, and the sudden drop in the necessity of using proprietary or legacy drivers.. should mean that the RAM requirements of lightweight operating systems are about to drop quite suddenly. If you have a machine with 512MB, let's say you have to use 128MB as-is.. you then have 384MB for zRAM.. the Gentoo wiki says a 3:1 ratio is typical.. and suddenly you've got a twelve year old machine with what's effectively 1.25 GiB of RAM, 1GB of which should be free for use by applications.. that's amazing o.O When you add in the fact that you could swap some of these compressed pages to disk and use it to save on disk bandwidth... it really just redefines what's obsolete and what's not.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ethana2 View Post
              This is really interesting to me, because a combination of zRAM, the removal of X.org, and the sudden drop in the necessity of using proprietary or legacy drivers.. should mean that the RAM requirements of lightweight operating systems are about to drop quite suddenly. If you have a machine with 512MB, let's say you have to use 128MB as-is.. you then have 384MB for zRAM.. the Gentoo wiki says a 3:1 ratio is typical.. and suddenly you've got a twelve year old machine with what's effectively 1.25 GiB of RAM, 1GB of which should be free for use by applications.. that's amazing o.O When you add in the fact that you could swap some of these compressed pages to disk and use it to save on disk bandwidth... it really just redefines what's obsolete and what's not.
              On the other hand, you need a graphics accelerated hardware.

              Comment


              • #8
                zram.txt file, line 1:

                zram: Compressed RAM based block devices

                Looks like the official name is zram .

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                  On the other hand, you need a graphics accelerated hardware.
                  Why?
                  -------

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by dee. View Post
                    Why?
                    -------
                    Because X.org can run on any piece-of-shit old legacy 1980s video card with 2 MB video memory that can output colors on screen with a VESA framebuffer on a simplistic device driver.

                    But with Wayland you need a relatively modern graphics card that supports OpenGL and a device driver with support for KMS and hardware acceleration.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                      Because X.org can run on any piece-of-shit old legacy 1980s video card with 2 MB video memory that can output colors on screen with a VESA framebuffer on a simplistic device driver.

                      But with Wayland you need a relatively modern graphics card that supports OpenGL and a device driver with support for KMS and hardware acceleration.
                      No you don't. RPi runs Wayland right now, with software rendering (and IIRC it already runs better than X). Wayland is backend-agnostic, you can pretty much run it on anything if you just write a backend for it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                        Because X.org can run on any piece-of-shit old legacy 1980s video card with 2 MB video memory that can output colors on screen with a VESA framebuffer on a simplistic device driver.

                        But with Wayland you need a relatively modern graphics card that supports OpenGL and a device driver with support for KMS and hardware acceleration.
                        Jesus christ you people are thick....


                        WAYLAND DOES NOT HAVE A HARD-REQUIREMENT ON 3D GRAPHICS OR OPENGL. SOFTWARE RENDERING IS SUPPORTED AND WILL WORK JUST FINE.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Oh, that means I can run Wayland in my shitty 2 MB of VRAM video piece of shit? It's going to look amazing!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Alejandro Nova View Post
                            Oh, that means I can run Wayland in my shitty 2 MB of VRAM video piece of shit? It's going to look amazing!
                            Depends....How much system memory ya got? And do you use X on that NOW? If i had one that old I would probably just use that at console mode and restrict it for like file serving..

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Alejandro Nova View Post
                              Oh, that means I can run Wayland in my shitty 2 MB of VRAM video piece of shit? It's going to look amazing!
                              I have to take it that you are being sarcastic. I don't think anybody in there right minds would try to run wayland on such a card.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X