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-an...@yandex.ru> wrote:
> > > enough! The moral of this story is that you can't get away with
> > > only
> > >
On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 02:18:06PM -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 6/9/20 1:57 PM, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 5:43 PM Samuel Sieb wrote:
> > >
> > > On 6/9/20 6:49 AM, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> > > > > Well, that's really the point. The one you're using is one of the (4?
On 6/9/20 1:57 PM, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 5:43 PM Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 6/9/20 6:49 AM, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
Well, that's really the point. The one you're using is one of the (4? 5?)
other zram implementations. It seems a bit more straightforward than the
systemd
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 5:43 PM Samuel Sieb wrote:
>
> On 6/9/20 6:49 AM, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> >> Well, that's really the point. The one you're using is one of the (4? 5?)
> >> other zram implementations. It seems a bit more straightforward than the
> >> systemd one for sure.
> >
> > The
On 6/9/20 6:49 AM, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
Well, that's really the point. The one you're using is one of the (4? 5?)
other zram implementations. It seems a bit more straightforward than the
systemd one for sure.
The zram-generator is probably more straightforward (with literally
less layers
> Well, that's really the point. The one you're using is one of the (4? 5?)
> other zram implementations. It seems a bit more straightforward than the
> systemd one for sure.
The zram-generator is probably more straightforward (with literally
less layers of indirection) than what the zram package
On Monday, June 8, 2020 5:40:56 AM MST Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> > Zswap sounds like an excellent idea to look into instead of zram. Not
> > only
> > that, but it'd allow traditional entry in fstab to configure it, instead
> > of
some systemd magic that nobody knows about.
>
>
> In that case
> Zswap sounds like an excellent idea to look into instead of zram. Not only
> that, but it'd allow traditional entry in fstab to configure it, instead of
> some systemd magic that nobody knows about.
In that case most of everything that happens on my system is magic, I
don't have comprehensive
On 08.06.2020 07:17, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> Zswap sounds like an excellent idea to look into instead of zram. Not only
> that, but it'd allow traditional entry in fstab to configure it, instead of
> some systemd magic that nobody knows about.
You can try this:
On Sun, 2020-06-07 at 18:19 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 12:56 PM Konstantin Kharlamov <
> hi-an...@yandex.ru> wrote:
> > Hello! I see a proposal to enable zram by deafult¹. If I correctly
> > understand this is the thread where it's being discussed. I have a
> > few
> >
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 11:18 PM John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>
> On Sunday, June 7, 2020 11:51:38 AM MST Konstantin Kharlamov wrote:
> > The third question touches the paragraph "Why not zswap?". The only
> > point it mentions is that swap-device is not encrypted. Fair enough,
> > although I wonder
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:35 AM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> zswap is configured by sysfs, same as zram.
>
s/by/via/
--
Chris Murphy
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On Sunday, June 7, 2020 11:51:38 AM MST Konstantin Kharlamov wrote:
> Hello! I see a proposal to enable zram by deafult¹. If I correctly
> understand this is the thread where it's being discussed. I have a few
> questions, answers to which probably would be nice to add to the
> proposal.
>
> 1.
By the way, shout out to Bastien Nocera. This feature was his idea
before I got around to picking it up and running with it.
https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/98
---
Chris Murphy
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 12:56 PM Konstantin Kharlamov wrote:
>
> Hello! I see a proposal to enable zram by deafult¹. If I correctly
> understand this is the thread where it's being discussed. I have a few
> questions, answers to which probably would be nice to add to the
> proposal.
>
> 1. It says
Hello! I see a proposal to enable zram by deafult¹. If I correctly
understand this is the thread where it's being discussed. I have a few
questions, answers to which probably would be nice to add to the
proposal.
1. It says ZRAM gets enabled on upgrade. What's gonna happen to systems
with ZSWAP
t; >
> > > > On Saturday, January 25, 2020 2:52:05 PM MST Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Question and (pre)proposal:
> > > >>
> > > >> Can Fedora converge on a single swap-on-ZRAM implementation, and if
&g
On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 3:28:36 AM MST Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> On 2020-02-11 05:05, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>
>
> > They do, but that doesn't negate the fact that it is actually supported
> > (you can hibernate your system), and using swap on zram outright breaks
> > hibernation (for
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 5:10 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
> A further possibility as it relates to hibernation, is having systemd
> activate a swap partition (or even a swapfile) only at hibernation
> time. That would block it from being used during normal usage,
> preserving it (in effect) for just
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 3:45 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> This discussion is mixing up two different interpretations of meaning
> of "supported".
>
> - Supported, as in, "this use case is in scope & is a release criteria"
>
> vs
>
> - Supported, as in, "the functionality works from a
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 3:29 AM Roberto Ragusa wrote:
>
> On 2020-02-11 05:05, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>
> > They do, but that doesn't negate the fact that it is actually supported (you
> > can hibernate your system), and using swap on zram outright breaks
> > hibernation
> > (for obvious
on and (pre)proposal:
> > >>
> > >> Can Fedora converge on a single swap-on-ZRAM implementation, and if
> > >> so, which one? Fedora Workstation WG wants to move to swap-on-ZRAM by
> > >> default in Fedora 33, and the working group needs to pick somethin
On 2020-02-11 05:05, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
They do, but that doesn't negate the fact that it is actually supported (you
can hibernate your system), and using swap on zram outright breaks hibernation
(for obvious reasons).
You would need to
swapon /dev/arealdisk
swapoff /dev/zram0
ZRAM implementation, and if
> >> so, which one? Fedora Workstation WG wants to move to swap-on-ZRAM by
> >> default in Fedora 33, and the working group needs to pick something
> >> soon.
> >
> > Using swap on zram disables the ability to hibernate, making
"John M. Harris Jr" writes:
> On Saturday, January 25, 2020 2:52:05 PM MST Chris Murphy wrote:
>
>> Question and (pre)proposal:
>>
>> Can Fedora converge on a single swap-on-ZRAM implementation, and if
>> so, which one? Fedora Workstation WG wants to move
Hi,
On 2/10/20 9:44 AM, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2020 9:40:09 PM MST John Reiser wrote:
John M. Harris Jr wrote:
Using swap on zram disables the ability to hibernate, making it a
non-starter for many users. If this is going to be thrown into anything,
the user needs
On Saturday, February 8, 2020 9:40:09 PM MST John Reiser wrote:
> John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>
>
> > Using swap on zram disables the ability to hibernate, making it a
> > non-starter for many users. If this is going to be thrown into anything,
> > the user needs to be asked whether they want it or
John M. Harris Jr wrote:
Using swap on zram disables the ability to hibernate, making it a non-starter
for many users. If this is going to be thrown into anything, the user needs to
be asked whether they want it or not in the installer, otherwise you're just
taking away features.
Why not
On Saturday, January 25, 2020 2:52:05 PM MST Chris Murphy wrote:
> Question and (pre)proposal:
> Can Fedora converge on a single swap-on-ZRAM implementation, and if
> so, which one? Fedora Workstation WG wants to move to swap-on-ZRAM by
> default in Fedora 33, and the working group n
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 03:02:38PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:56 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> > It is "upstream" in the sense that it is under the same umbrella.
> > There are no plans to move the code to the main repo, because it's in
> > rust
Hi
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:56 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> It is "upstream" in the sense that it is under the same umbrella.
> There are no plans to move the code to the main repo, because it's in
> rust and currently combining meson which is used for systemd proper
> with rust and
On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 02:52:05PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Question and (pre)proposal:
> Can Fedora converge on a single swap-on-ZRAM implementation, and if
> so, which one? Fedora Workstation WG wants to move to swap-on-ZRAM by
> default in Fedora 33, and the working group n
Question and (pre)proposal:
Can Fedora converge on a single swap-on-ZRAM implementation, and if
so, which one? Fedora Workstation WG wants to move to swap-on-ZRAM by
default in Fedora 33, and the working group needs to pick something
soon.
I think it should be zram-generator. It's the most
33 matches
Mail list logo
