On 6/6/20 4:55 PM, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 3:16:02 PM MST Samuel Sieb wrote:
> Great, then it probably wouldn't benefit you, but it also would not harm
> you at all either. In my case, my laptop was constantly thrashing the
> swap and now it isn't, so I'm very happy about it.
What was causing it to be constantly thrashing? Instead of breaking
traditional systems even further, and ignoring the users' choice during
upgrade, why don't we address the actual cause of the problem that some seem
to have which led to the suggestion of using zram?
There you go with the "breaking" thing again. Nothing is getting
broken! If you don't need to use the swap, then you won't even notice
it. The only "problem" zram is solving is that disk swap is very slow
so if you can keep the swap in ram, everything stays much faster.
The cause of thrashing in my case is running several memory heavy
applications. I have almost 50 Firefox windows with multiple tabs in
each one, so likely 300 tabs open. Multi-process Firefox is very nice
but it makes it difficult to get a good memory usage number, but it's
probably over 6GB. I have a very large Inbox and many folders which
probably contributes to Thunderbird often going to 2 or 3GB. I'm
running Discord and various other applications. Did you read the
article that Chris posted earlier? You're always going to want swap, so
why not start with the very effective zram swap. It's probably all
you'll need, but you can add some disk swap as well for any overflow.