Google Continues Working On Suspend-Only Swap Spaces For Linux

[piorunz]

80's sysadmins coming out of woodworks with their "scripts"... Scripts are unmanageable, non-reusable, eventually unmaintainable. Few lines here, few lines there and suddenly you have an abomination on your hands.

Modern systems are designed to be declarative as much as possible, on all levels. The only place left for scripts is maybe end-user customization.

I am not 80s sysadmin. I first touched Linux is '00s. That's why I added "I guess to spin it off in elegant, separate setting is nicer for them."
Yes you can have hibernation-only-swap today. But in a script. That's why soon Linux will have nicer solution soon. I don't argue with that. I just downplay importance of this "news".

[intelfx]

Yes, that's correct. But still, with low memory systems, swap can, and maybe should be enabled at all times, no innovation required there.
Only innovation we talk about here is Google's effort to have swap for hibernation only. You can have that today, just swap on -a before hibernation and swapoff -a after wakeup. Few lines in a script. Or you can do that with custom mount and umount instead etc. I guess to spin it off in elegant, separate setting is nicer for them.

80's sysadmins coming out of woodworks with their "scripts"... Scripts are unmanageable, non-reusable, eventually unmaintainable. Few lines here, few lines there and suddenly you have an abomination on your hands.

Modern systems are designed to be declarative as much as possible, on all levels. The only place left for scripts is maybe end-user customization.

[intelfx]

No need for swap.

https://chrisdown.name/2018/01/02/in-defence-of-swap.html

[Mathias]

Does Swap ever get used on your systems? Sure when I have a process that wants to use >100% ram, the system comes to a crawl while trying to swap. But in normal use, I have never seen any swap used at all. No matter if I had 4, 8, 16 or 32 GB of ram.
If I manage to kill the leaking process, sure the rest will stay in swap. But that means applications are unresponsible while the swap is flushed.
I'm on fedora if that matters.

[piorunz]

piorunz, not everyone has the same configuration, use-case, etc. You're gonna lose this battle. What works for you might not work for everyone.

Battle? With who? What we are fighting for again? I don't even know what you are replying to exactly as you didn't quoted anything.

[piorunz]

Tell that to my boss, who just (well, recently) got the invoice for 1.5TB of 2933MHz DDR4 ECC-RDIMMs. (And that wasn't even the most expensive stuff available!)

Wow! At least he won't be hibernating or swapping that I hope

[perpetually high]

piorunz, not everyone has the same configuration, use-case, etc. You're gonna lose this battle. What works for you might not work for everyone.

[Paradigm Shifter]

RAM is cheap.

Tell that to my boss, who just (well, recently) got the invoice for 1.5TB of 2933MHz DDR4 ECC-RDIMMs. (And that wasn't even the most expensive stuff available!)

[piorunz]

yup, but sometimes you have to work with whatever your company gives you.

Yes, that's correct. But still, with low memory systems, swap can, and maybe should be enabled at all times, no innovation required there.
Only innovation we talk about here is Google's effort to have swap for hibernation only. You can have that today, just swap on -a before hibernation and swapoff -a after wakeup. Few lines in a script. Or you can do that with custom mount and umount instead etc. I guess to spin it off in elegant, separate setting is nicer for them.

[cynic]

Don't buy laptops with soldered RAM then. It's your fault.

yup, but sometimes you have to work with whatever your company gives you.