On Mon, 2020-06-08 at 09:37 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov wrote:
On Sun, 2020-06-07 at 18:19 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 12:56 PM Konstantin Kharlamov <
> > hi-angel(a)yandex.ru> wrote:
> > enough! The moral of this story is that you can't get away with
> > only
> > ZRAM without any disk SWAP. You need disk SWAP. And if you have
> > disk
> > SWAP, ZSWAP fits more nicely there as a compressing buffer before
> > the
> > data finally spills over to disk.
>
> Your use case is intentionally overcommitting available memory and
> it
> sounds like you don't have much choice in that you (a) the workload
> you have is the workload you need to run, and (b) memory isn't
> upgradeable.
>
> You should consider testing whether swap-on-zram sized to 100% RAM
> fits your use case better. And in fact if your workload gets very
> good
> compression ratios, it can be quite reasonable to go higher than
> 100%.
Thanks! I'll give it a try, will report back.
So far everything was fine with ZRAM configured to use 100%. That said,
as per discussion in another thread I have migrated today back to ZSRAM
as it is more suitable when there is a on-disk SWAP as well (can't
provide a link as mail archive returns 503 right now, but the
discussion is called "Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: swap on
zram". Turns out, the discussion of proposal is being held there, not
in this thread. It is easy to mistake because the original proposal
page does not have a link to discussion right now. I could as well have
started a new discussion ¯\_(ツ)_/¯).