On Saturday, June 6, 2020 3:16:02 PM MST Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 6/6/20 10:41 AM, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 1:15:35 AM MST Samuel Sieb wrote:
>> On 6/6/20 12:42 AM, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>>> On my laptop, a Lenovo X200T with Core(TM)2 Duo CPU U9300; 6 GiB RAM,
>>> enabling swap on zram led to increased CPU usage (Always above 13%
>>> normally idling at 6%!), and my entire system freezing after about 30
>>> minutes. In all fairness, I don't know why my system froze, as I
>>> get anything over netconsole and sysrq wasn't working, but I think
>>> going to leave it disabled. Swap on disk is more than fast enough for
>>> buffer/cache and hibernation/resume on my system.
>> I don't know why you had problems with it, but it's working on fine on
>> every system I've tried it on. It's not increasing my CPU usage.
>> probably actually lower due to less swap thrashing.
> There wasn't any thrashing to begin with. I'm currently using 8.0Mi of my
> 8 GiB of swap. This is most likely the case for most casual users, those
> not compiling complex software on their system. This is with Firefox,
> Konversation, KMail, virt-manager and a few Konsole sessions open.
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?
John M. Harris, Jr.