On (03/05/15 09:20), Minchan Kim wrote:
> In summary, I want to support only "cat /sys/class/zram-control/zram_add"
> unless you have feasible usecase.
>
> What do you think about it?
>
Hello Minchan,
I've tried to contact as many guys (who has previously demonstrated some
interest in
On (03/05/15 13:10), Karel Zak wrote:
> > > we upgraded our scripts but landed some bugs there? it's up to particular
> > > implementation. in your example, I assume, someone used zram with
> > > num_devices >= 1000?
> > > that's impossible. current num_devices limitation is 32. and uid-s start
On (03/05/15 13:02), Karel Zak wrote:
> > hm, you never know what people can come up with. that's probably the
> > strongest support argument I can provide. I wish there was something
> > like - my friend Mike has a "device /dev/zram1 is always swap device,
> > device /dev/zram$(id -u) is a
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 11:04:36AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 10:47:52AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (03/05/15 10:33), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > hm, I can think of a huge build server with tons of users.
> > > > /dev/zram$(id -u)
> > > > created during user
Cc Sami Kerola, Timofey Titovets, Karel Zak, util-linux
(don't have Jóhann B. Guðmundsson's email). also published on google+.
On (03/05/15 09:20), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Make zram-contol/zram_add interface easier to use. Extend it to support
> > read and write operations.
> >
> > Write
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 09:58:29AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On (03/05/15 09:20), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > I'm not against but I want to know why we should support
> > user-defined device id. What usecase do you have in mind?
> >
>
> hm, you never know what people can come up
On (03/05/15 09:20), Minchan Kim wrote:
In summary, I want to support only cat /sys/class/zram-control/zram_add
unless you have feasible usecase.
What do you think about it?
Hello Minchan,
I've tried to contact as many guys (who has previously demonstrated some
interest in on-demand
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 09:58:29AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Hello,
On (03/05/15 09:20), Minchan Kim wrote:
I'm not against but I want to know why we should support
user-defined device id. What usecase do you have in mind?
hm, you never know what people can come up with.
Cc Sami Kerola, Timofey Titovets, Karel Zak, util-linux
(don't have Jóhann B. Guðmundsson's email). also published on google+.
On (03/05/15 09:20), Minchan Kim wrote:
Make zram-contol/zram_add interface easier to use. Extend it to support
read and write operations.
Write operation
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 11:04:36AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 10:47:52AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (03/05/15 10:33), Minchan Kim wrote:
hm, I can think of a huge build server with tons of users.
/dev/zram$(id -u)
created during user login and
On (03/05/15 13:02), Karel Zak wrote:
hm, you never know what people can come up with. that's probably the
strongest support argument I can provide. I wish there was something
like - my friend Mike has a device /dev/zram1 is always swap device,
device /dev/zram$(id -u) is a per-user zram
On (03/05/15 13:10), Karel Zak wrote:
we upgraded our scripts but landed some bugs there? it's up to particular
implementation. in your example, I assume, someone used zram with
num_devices = 1000?
that's impossible. current num_devices limitation is 32. and uid-s start
from 1000.
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky
wrote:
> On (03/05/15 11:04), Minchan Kim wrote:
>> > we upgraded our scripts but landed some bugs there? it's up to particular
>> > implementation. in your example, I assume, someone used zram with
>> > num_devices >= 1000?
>> > that's
On (03/05/15 11:04), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > we upgraded our scripts but landed some bugs there? it's up to particular
> > implementation. in your example, I assume, someone used zram with
> > num_devices >= 1000?
> > that's impossible. current num_devices limitation is 32. and uid-s start
> >
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 10:47:52AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (03/05/15 10:33), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > hm, I can think of a huge build server with tons of users. /dev/zram$(id
> > > -u)
> > > created during user login and destroyed during logout. so users use
> > > theirs own
> > >
On (03/05/15 10:33), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > hm, I can think of a huge build server with tons of users. /dev/zram$(id -u)
> > created during user login and destroyed during logout. so users use theirs
> > own
> > zram devices with predictable device ids (which also makes it simpler for
> > admin)
On (03/05/15 10:17), Minchan Kim wrote:
> >
> >
> > user defined id support comes at a price of ~10 lines of code, or even
> > less. we waste much more code to show ->stats, and not all of them are
> > of any real use, to be fair. that just said, that dropping user defined
> > id is not a great
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 10:20:43AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (03/05/15 09:58), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > /* yet "/dev/zram$(id -u)" thing looks interesting */
> >
>
> hm, I can think of a huge build server with tons of users. /dev/zram$(id -u)
> created during user login and
On (03/05/15 09:58), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> /* yet "/dev/zram$(id -u)" thing looks interesting */
>
hm, I can think of a huge build server with tons of users. /dev/zram$(id -u)
created during user login and destroyed during logout. so users use theirs own
zram devices with predictable
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 09:58:29AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On (03/05/15 09:20), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > I'm not against but I want to know why we should support
> > user-defined device id. What usecase do you have in mind?
> >
>
> hm, you never know what people can come up
Hello,
On (03/05/15 09:20), Minchan Kim wrote:
> I'm not against but I want to know why we should support
> user-defined device id. What usecase do you have in mind?
>
hm, you never know what people can come up with. that's probably the
strongest support argument I can provide. I wish there was
Hello Sergey,
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 11:16:39PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Make zram-contol/zram_add interface easier to use. Extend it to support
> read and write operations.
>
> Write operation remains the same:
>
> echo X > /sys/class/zram-control/zram_add
>
>
Hello,
Make zram-contol/zram_add interface easier to use. Extend it to support
read and write operations.
Write operation remains the same:
echo X > /sys/class/zram-control/zram_add
will add /dev/zramX (or return error).
Read operation is treated as 'pick up available device_id, add
On (03/05/15 09:58), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
/* yet /dev/zram$(id -u) thing looks interesting */
hm, I can think of a huge build server with tons of users. /dev/zram$(id -u)
created during user login and destroyed during logout. so users use theirs own
zram devices with predictable device
On (03/05/15 10:17), Minchan Kim wrote:
user defined id support comes at a price of ~10 lines of code, or even
less. we waste much more code to show -stats, and not all of them are
of any real use, to be fair. that just said, that dropping user defined
id is not a great deal. ok,
Hello,
On (03/05/15 09:20), Minchan Kim wrote:
I'm not against but I want to know why we should support
user-defined device id. What usecase do you have in mind?
hm, you never know what people can come up with. that's probably the
strongest support argument I can provide. I wish there was
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky
sergey.senozhatsky.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On (03/05/15 11:04), Minchan Kim wrote:
we upgraded our scripts but landed some bugs there? it's up to particular
implementation. in your example, I assume, someone used zram with
num_devices =
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 10:47:52AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (03/05/15 10:33), Minchan Kim wrote:
hm, I can think of a huge build server with tons of users. /dev/zram$(id
-u)
created during user login and destroyed during logout. so users use
theirs own
zram devices
On (03/05/15 10:33), Minchan Kim wrote:
hm, I can think of a huge build server with tons of users. /dev/zram$(id -u)
created during user login and destroyed during logout. so users use theirs
own
zram devices with predictable device ids (which also makes it simpler for
admin)
for
On (03/05/15 11:04), Minchan Kim wrote:
we upgraded our scripts but landed some bugs there? it's up to particular
implementation. in your example, I assume, someone used zram with
num_devices = 1000?
that's impossible. current num_devices limitation is 32. and uid-s start
from 1000.
Hello Sergey,
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 11:16:39PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Hello,
Make zram-contol/zram_add interface easier to use. Extend it to support
read and write operations.
Write operation remains the same:
echo X /sys/class/zram-control/zram_add
will add
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 09:58:29AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Hello,
On (03/05/15 09:20), Minchan Kim wrote:
I'm not against but I want to know why we should support
user-defined device id. What usecase do you have in mind?
hm, you never know what people can come up with.
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 10:20:43AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (03/05/15 09:58), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
/* yet /dev/zram$(id -u) thing looks interesting */
hm, I can think of a huge build server with tons of users. /dev/zram$(id -u)
created during user login and destroyed
Hello,
Make zram-contol/zram_add interface easier to use. Extend it to support
read and write operations.
Write operation remains the same:
echo X /sys/class/zram-control/zram_add
will add /dev/zramX (or return error).
Read operation is treated as 'pick up available device_id, add
34 matches
Mail list logo
