• vithigar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    10 hours ago

    It’s a little better than your read. The ~400x speedup is in comparison to using ZRAM, which, in very brief terms, compresses memory by creating an in-memory compressed block device and assigning that as your swap space. So your “swap” is actually a compressed chunk of RAM, not on disk.

    This was significantly slower than normal memory access because page faulting when looking up something in memory then fetching from swap was, itself, expensive. Regardless of how fast that swap was. When your swap is on a storage device that overhead is comparatively tiny, but when it’s just another chunk of memory suddenly it’s what you’re spending most of your time on.

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Fuck yea, RAM swap? I bought both my laptop and desktop when RAM was cheap, and got more memory than I needed. I can safely allocate like 12GB to CRAM!

      • vithigar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        8 hours ago

        The win from CRAM is that it is not swap, and operates using mostly normal RAM semantics. If it works as advertised you should be able to allocate most (all?!) of your RAM as CRAM.

        • MacFearrs@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          I would guess this is only useful in servers, as for day to day use you ideally want the lowest latency you can for responsiveness. That said, if there’s a way you can specify which type processes can use, that may be useful in some cases