<quote name="John McCabe-Dansted" date="Thu, 23 Dec 2010 at 02:22 +0800"> > There has been research into heuristics that allow one to get the best > of compressed ram and disk based swap device, providing performance > that is never worse than disk swap (minus 2% overhead or so). Also > simply compressing the pages being swapped out could be useful for > reducing the number of writes to SSD based swap. However it seems that > neither of these will be supported by compcache in the short term.
It really should sit as an in-between swap and memory place. Recently "swapped" pages should go straight to compcache, evicting pages if necessary *from* compcache to disk. That would be ideal. I don't know if the kernel devs would ever want to futz with the kernel that much, though. I wonder why nobody has done compression on regular swap yet. I mean, the HUGE downside of swap is disk time, compressing the data on the disk would at least marginally speed up access time to that swapped data. > One area compcache is already useful is in LiveCDs, for example it is > used by Ubuntu to reduce the amount of memory need to install from the > LiveCD. Yes, very cool! -- Von Fugal
pgpbk1CuXYVjx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
