Tiny Core Linux

Off-Topic => Off-Topic - Tiny Tux's Corner => Topic started by: curaga on April 11, 2013, 10:26:52 AM

Title: LWN article on the various memory compression methods
Post by: curaga on April 11, 2013, 10:26:52 AM: http://lwn.net/Articles/545244/

It details the differences between zram, zcache and zswap.
Title: Re: LWN article on the various memory compression methods
Post by: coreplayer2 on April 11, 2013, 01:15:08 PM: Very interesting, thanks
Title: Re: LWN article on the various memory compression methods
Post by: curaga on April 12, 2013, 06:23:21 AM: How it all relates to TC:

We use zram by default, and ship zcache so it can be configured by the user if needed.

The name of the bootcode, nozswap, comes from back when zram was called compcache.
Title: Re: LWN article on the various memory compression methods
Post by: tinypoodle on July 19, 2013, 11:39:33 PM: Quote from: curaga on April 12, 2013, 06:23:21 AM
We use zram by default, and ship zcache so it can be configured by the user if needed.

The name of the bootcode, nozswap, comes from back when zram was called compcache.

As zswap just has been introduced in main - while zram and zcache remain in staging at current - I'd like to suggest considering renaming the "nozswap" boot code, in order to avoid (future) confusion.

For reference:
http://cateee.net/lkddb/web-lkddb/ZSWAP.html
http://cateee.net/lkddb/web-lkddb/ZRAM.html
http://cateee.net/lkddb/web-lkddb/ZCACHE.html
Title: Re: LWN article on the various memory compression methods
Post by: curaga on July 20, 2013, 05:16:02 AM: Yes, with the 5.0 major release breaking the existing use would be more acceptable. Any suggestions for a good, short name? I'm out of them for the moment.
Title: Re: LWN article on the various memory compression methods
Post by: curaga on July 20, 2013, 11:56:37 AM: I'm not sure that's descriptive enough, as you can use zram on your own as a compressed ramdisk to store anything.
Title: Re: LWN article on the various memory compression methods
Post by: tinypoodle on July 20, 2013, 03:55:27 PM: True, but the way I understand it, "no*" boot codes would often refer to preventing some feature from being activated and configured with particular defaults at boot time, while not excluding a later activation with a potentially different configuration by user after boot.