[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D52D091.1000504@vflare.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 12:36:17 -0500
From: Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>
To: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>
CC: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>, gregkh@...e.de,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
matthew@....cx, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
jeremy@...p.org, Kurt Hackel <kurt.hackel@...cle.com>,
npiggin@...nel.dk, riel@...hat.com,
Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>, mel@....ul.ie,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
wfg@...l.ustc.edu.cn, tytso@....edu, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
hughd@...gle.com, hannes@...xchg.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] drivers/staging: zcache: host services and PAM
services
On 02/09/2011 11:39 AM, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
>
>
>> From: Minchan Kim [mailto:minchan.kim@...il.com]
>
>> As I read your comment, I can't find the benefit of zram compared to
>> frontswap.
>
> Well, I am biased, but I agree that frontswap is a better technical
> solution than zram. ;-) But "dynamic-ity" is very important to
> me and may be less important to others.
>
I agree that frontswap is better than zram when considering swap as the
use case - no bio overhead, dynamic resizing. However, zram being a
*generic* block-device has some unique cases too like hosting files on
/tmp, various caches under /var or any place where a compressed
in-memory block device can help.
So, frontswap and zram have overlapping use case of swap but are not the
same.
Thanks,
Nitin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists