Database Develop

Using NAND as RAM?

After many tests I think that we really suffer from a lack of RAM. But the internal memory (NAND) should be the same speed as RAM I think. So why we don't use another 128Mb of NAND as additional RAM? A sort of swap part, but used as RAM and not as normal swap....
If someone related to the kernel would answer is it possible or not, it would be good)

DiMiK said:
After many tests I think that we really suffer from a lack of RAM. But the internal memory (NAND) should be the same speed as RAM I think. So why we don't use another 128Mb of NAND as additional RAM? A sort of swap part, but used as RAM and not as normal swap....
If someone related to the kernel would answer is it possible or not, it would be good)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Using it as RAM would propably require major changes to the kernel if it is even possible which I doubt it is. Using it as swap would be the possible alternative and I pretty sure that is very possible and would help performance but at a cost.
1. You would either have very little left for system and data or you would have to put system and/or data on the SD-card and that alone may make you lose anything you gain from putting swap on NAND.
2. I actually asked the swap-on nand question myself and well, we can't replace our NAND, at least not easily and swap is I/O intensive and intesive I/O will sooner or later wear out the NAND. So basicly this is not a good alternative unless you want to turn your phone into a paperweight sooner than you had planned.
So what we can do is using compcache and/or swap on SD-card. The easiest thing is to just enable some compcache. It uses RAM as swap and uses compression on the contents so we can hold more things in RAM that we would usually be able to. This means Android can keep more apps in "sleep" allowing for faster switching between apps but it will also decrease the possible amount of available RAM for the active app. I usually turn on compcache with the default setting which is to use 25% of the RAM for compressed swap. It might be placebo but IMHO it feels a it "smoother" to use after that.
Another alternative is to use a swap partition in the sdcard. Just using swap means you do not need to load any compcache kernel modules and there is no compression taking place so it's a good alterantive. However you need know your way around partitioning SD-cards to get this running so it's not as easy as just enabling compcache (assuming the build supports compcache).
For the really advanced you can enable compcache with backing swap. It means it uses a certain amount of compressed swap i RAM and when it runs out of space there it starts putting stuff on the SD-card swap partition. Once again, a bit tricky to setup but may be the best alternative.
Read more about it here: http://wiki.cyanogenmod.com/index.php/Compcache

kallt_kaffe said:
I usually turn on compcache with the default setting which is to use 25% of the RAM for compressed swap. It might be placebo but IMHO it feels a it "smoother" to use after that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It make good effect: more applications can run simultaneously.

Making g1 run faster? (10 mb hack)

Hi, I was wondering if I can use the 10 mb ram hack with my g1 with CM 6.0 RC2. I noticed most of the tutoriials are using 4.xx.xx so I wanted to ask before I do it. My phone is kind of slow even though it is overclocked at 576mhz and 64 mb class 6 memory swap. Thanks.

Ties0 said:
Hi, I was wondering if I can use the 10 mb ram hack with my g1 with CM 6.0 RC2. I noticed most of the tutoriials are using 4.xx.xx so I wanted to ask before I do it. My phone is kind of slow even though it is overclocked at 576mhz and 64 mb class 6 memory swap. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no 10 mb hack and won't be. It is not possible with Froyo.

As indicated above there is no 10mb hack and there never will be.
I am currently using the latest nightly and it is super fast and stable. As fast as donut (no ****).
3D Gallery works perfectly and there have been a bunch of small cool features added to the nightly.
I highly recommend it.
Awesome work has been done by Cyanogen and Crew.

ok thanks for the reply guys. Is there any other way to make my rom faster? Thanks.

Ties0 said:
ok thanks for the reply guys. Is there any other way to make my rom faster? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course reduce or remove swap,
android has it's own swap mechanism that causes little ram to actually be least recently used, thus if swap is enabled the phone will be constantly swapping it in/out!
In addition to reducing the life of the SD card its slow. I understand a very little bit of swap *may* allow some edge cases where a *little* more ram is needed or to offload something like launcher that may be configured to stay in ram to work faster.. however you can't forget the speed issue.
Try this enter console on your phone and run:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/sdcard/swapspeedtest bs=1048576 of=64
Note the time it takes, that is the time to write 64mb on a swap out operation.. if it seems too long to wait for a task its too much swap. 12mb is almost acceptable. I just stick to comp cache only. . Upped it from the default 12 to 15 MB since I had one or two tasks that just needed a tad more memory to play nice.
Also what is slow, returning to home? A particular app? I doubt its everything, usually its launcher and there are ways of locking it in home, upgrades to awd, and alternative launchers. These may help.

ezterry said:
Of course reduce or remove swap,
android has it's own swap mechanism that causes little ram to actually be least used, thus if swap is enabled the phone will be constantly swapping it in/out
In addition to reducing the life of the SD card its slow. I understand a very little bit of swap to allow some edge cases where a little more ram is needed or to offload something like launcher that may be configured to stay in ram.. however you can't forget the speed issue.
Try this enter console on your phone and run:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/sdcard/swapspeedtest bs=1048576 of=64
Note the time it takes, that is the time to write 64mb on a swap out operation.. if it seems too long to wait for a task its too much swap. 12mb is almost acceptable. I just stick to comp cache only. . Upped it from the default 12 to 15 MB since I had one or two tasks that just needed a tad more memory yo play nice.
Also what is slow, returning to home? A particular app? I doubt its everything, usually its launcher and there are ways of locking it in home, upgrades to awd, and alternative launchers. These may help.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the detailed response! I will try lowering the swap partition, I always thought it would be fast because of the class 6 speeds. Does putting all my apps on SD make it slow as well? Also, returning to home is the main lag I'm talking about as it takes quite a while to see my apps. Thank you!

ezterry said:
Of course reduce or remove swap,
android has it's own swap mechanism that causes little ram to actually be least used, thus if swap is enabled the phone will be constantly swapping it in/out
In addition to reducing the life of the SD card its slow. I understand a very little bit of swap to allow some edge cases where a little more ram is needed or to offload something like launcher that may be configured to stay in ram.. however you can't forget the speed issue.
Try this enter console on your phone and run:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/sdcard/swapspeedtest bs=1048576 of=64
Note the time it takes, that is the time to write 64mb on a swap out operation.. if it seems too long to wait for a task its too much swap. 12mb is almost acceptable. I just stick to comp cache only. . Upped it from the default 12 to 15 MB since I had one or two tasks that just needed a tad more memory yo play nice.
Also what is slow, returning to home? A particular app? I doubt its everything, usually its launcher and there are ways of locking it in home, upgrades to awd, and alternative launchers. These may help.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have about 3-5 apps that I would like to be running at one time? Should I be using CompCache or Swap? Currently I am on SuperD 1.9.3 WGK. I have been reluctant to run Froyo roms because they are so much more memory hungry in my experiences. My current rom runs pretty fast with a 96mb swap. If I were to fun a Froyo rom, what can I do to be able to run the 3-5 apps and retain speed?

Ties0 said:
Thanks for the detailed response! I will try lowering the swap partition, I always thought it would be fast because of the class 6 speeds. Does putting all my apps on SD make it slow as well? Also, returning to home is the main lag I'm talking about as it takes quite a while to see my apps. Thank you!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you are using BOTH SWAP & have applications installed to the sdcard, then it will ****REALLY**** be slow.
With just applications on the sdcard, your speed should be fine.

Ties0 said:
Also, returning to home is the main lag I'm talking about as it takes quite a while to see my apps. Thank you!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is a symptom of launcher being evicted from ram, try the stay in ram option in settings->adw launcher->system settings->system persistent in the more recent versions of adequate (I think included with rc2 if my memory serves me)
It may not be perfect as it will still get killed if a very large application is loaded.
Either you need a launcher that behaves as a good android application, and can quickly reload it's last state, even if it was not in ram when you requested it.. or launcher needs to be considered outside the usual android memory management and to be kept in ram.
These persistent processes are where you may depending on your usage of the phone find comp cache or swap in low amounts (32mb combined is probably the absolute max) may help as they will have allocated ram that is rarely used and not automatically freed as they are persistent..

ezterry said:
This is a symptom of launcher being evicted from ram, try the stay in ram option in settings->adw launcher->system settings->system persistent in the more recent versions of adequate (I think included with rc2 if my memory serves me)
It may not be perfect as it will still get killed if a very large application is loaded.
Either you need a launcher that behaves as a good android application, and can quickly reload it's last state, even if it was not in ram when you requested it.. or launcher needs to be considered outside the usual android memory management and to be kept in ram.
These persistent processes are where you may depending on your usage of the phone find comp cache or swap in low amounts (32mb combined is probably the absolute max) may help as they will have allocated ram that is rarely used and not automatically freed as they are persistent..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the detailed response! I just changed the adw launcher and deleted my swap partition... It seems to be much slower when pressing home (icons are taking a while to load) so I might just use 32 mb for swap.
EDIT: question, what exactly does ext4 do? I know swap is like external ram, but what does ext4/ext3/etc exactly do? and how much should I put in? I tried googling but could not find the answer. Thanks!

Ties0 said:
EDIT: question, what exactly does ext4 do? I know swap is like external ram, but what does ext4/ext3/etc exactly do? and how much should I put in? I tried googling but could not find the answer. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
On CM6, nothing. On CM 4 & 5, it was used for Apps2Ext (formerly known as Apps2SD - before Google came out with their own flavor). However, CM6 does not have Apps2Ext. It has been indicated that it will be targeted for 6.1.

[Q]Does Quasar kernel support swap?

hi guys,Does Quasar kernel support swap?and how to enable it?
i tried to enable it but failed
and i'm thinking about there's a lot of free space that i never used in /data and /system,so why don't we use those useless space to swap for more ram?
or we can use ZRAM?and how to use it?

we have 512 mb memory, for what you want swap?

actually the ram we can use only have less than 300mb

hmm partitionning SDC should do the job, isn't it ? do "ext" partitions have something to do with that ?

I think there's no reason to use swap, but dxdiag32's idea is not bad... internal memory is quicker than sd...
Regards.

Nah, it doesn't support it.
I did some tests with ZRAM and ZCache back in the LG P500 days and it didn't seem to help with anything so I usually disable Swap support now.
Anyway, you can always mount a tmpfs partition to some applications to boost their I/O operations if that's what you're looking for.
Huexxx said:
I think there's no reason to use swap, but dxdiag32's idea is not bad... internal memory is quicker than sd...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Depends on the microSD card's class. A class 10 is faster than internal memory.
In fact, it's a shame they dropped the yaffs2 filesystem as in non-sequential I/O operations it's the best one.

Class10 is faster? At least internal memory will be less energy hungry... won't be?

Huexxx said:
Class10 is faster? At least internal memory will be less energy hungry... won't be?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, class 10 (>= 10 mb/s write speed) is faster than internal memory.
This is why moving app, data and dalvik to microSD when you have such microSD provides a good boost on I/O operations. There's many folks using the combo CM + S2E + MicroSD Class 10.
As for battery, it's a good question but I bet it should be the same. I/O stuff isn't heavy.

most of us now is using C4 sdcard,at least in China is .so i wanna give us some more performance.my free space in /data partition keep more than 800MB for a long time,and i think more ram can provide us more stable phone.

Beware that RAM works differently for Android devices.
Whereas free RAM in Windows is arguably better than occupied RAM, this is not so for Android. In Android, having RAM allocated is good which is also behind the reason of why we shouldn't use task killers. That being said, we don't really need more than 512 MB of RAM for a heapsize of 32 MB and proper OOM groupings and adj values! Even with an aggressive usage, it's unlikely you'll manage to trigger an OOM (out of memory) throughout your day.
Here's an oldie but goldie article regarding this:
http://lifehacker.com/5650894/andro...ed-what-they-do-and-why-you-shouldnt-use-them

ok got it , thanks knzo

knzo said:
we shouldn't use task killers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand the theory but because of my own experience I do not agree in 100% with You. My previous smartphone was Samsung Spica ( not much RAM ). I used to use my favourite IGO for navigation. It was impossible to succesfully launch IGO if I have not used task killer before.
Without task killer IGO just started and vanished within seconds.

pabgar said:
I understand the theory but because of my own experience I do not agree in 100% with You. My previous smartphone was Samsung Spica ( not much RAM ). I used to use my favourite IGO for navigation. It was impossible to succesfully launch IGO if I have not used task killer before.
Without task killer IGO just started and vanished within seconds.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's because IGO triggered an OOM event and the ROM you had instead of doing an intelligent swipe and killing applications based on certain heuristics, was killing the process responsible for the OOM instead (IGO). It's a flag in sysctl called: OOM kill allocating task.
So in that case, it was just a lousy ROM/kernel. Or perhaps in Spica (old kernel, old android version) there wasn't this setting and the phone always killed the application that made the phone run out of memory. This explains why it vanished after a bit.
Either way I stand correct, there's no need for task killers in a device with >= 256 MB of RAM or properly configured.

knzo said:
That's because IGO triggered an OOM event and the ROM you had instead of doing an intelligent swipe and killing applications based on certain heuristics, was killing the process responsible for the OOM instead (IGO). It's a flag in sysctl called: OOM kill allocating task.
So in that case, it was just a lousy ROM/kernel. Or perhaps in Spica (old kernel, old android version) there wasn't this setting and the phone always killed the application that made the phone run out of memory. This explains why it vanished after a bit.
Either way I stand correct, there's no need for task killers in a device with >= 256 MB of RAM or properly configured.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed. I still have my old Galaxy Apollo, with 256 MB ram it goes perfectly as it should. In fact, on a careful observation i 've noticed that if we use taskkiller at autokill level at let's say 30 minutes autokill, it will technicall consume 4 CPU cycles in an hour for each app (two for killing, and two when applications like gmail/facebook etc. starts automatically again).. but without taskkiller they may have stay idle, and not used any CPU cycle at all for as many hours as phone is idle. And for battery purpose, it is the CPU cycle that drain, not the used memory !

in my opinion,we only need to kill the apps that use internet in background to save battery.such as Google Maps,once i used it,its services stay in background and after 3 hours i didn't use phone do anything,battery drain 3%,and if i kill it,no battery drain after all

Google Maps and DRM service process sometimes cause battery drains indeed.

knzo said:
Google Maps and DRM service process sometimes cause battery drains indeed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i deleted DRM service,and seems it's no harm to system

Lol but do you know what is it function ?
Sent from my LG-P970 using xda premium

I've seen drm using a lot of CPU as well from time to time. What is it used for and how would you go about removing it?
dxdiag32 said:
i deleted DRM service,and seems it's no harm to system
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my LG-P970 using XDA App

masterthor said:
I've seen drm using a lot of CPU as well from time to time. What is it used for and how would you go about removing it?
Sent from my LG-P970 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can use Titanium https://market.android.com/details?id=com.keramidas.TitaniumBackup
-Go to Backup/Restore tab
-Find by DRM Protected Content Storage
-Click and select Freeze
Now the app is Freeze and the system don't see more!

[Q] Would enabling swap boost real world performance?

I'm interested in any real world experiences of people using a swap partition on the SD card or similar solutions. I mostly see guides about how you enable swap, which isn't that hard, but any quantifiable or subjective reports of improved performance is lacking.
My only experience using swap was using an openwrt router (with very limited resources) where it was vital for some stuff to function at all, but I couldn't see any general speed improvements, and when swap was used it was terribly slow.
Do you use swap or tried it, does it help? How much?

PremiumMediocre said:
Do you use swap or tried it, does it help? How much?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Apparently this is not something that interest people, but in case someone searches for swap and finds this post I can say it definitely helps with multitasking. Currently my phone uses over 100MB of swap space, and lags due to apps being terminated due to low memory is a more rare occurrence nowadays.

Just some interesting reading about this:
http://zerocredibility.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/why-android-swap-doesnt-make-sense/
http://android.stackexchange.com/questions/2310/how-will-a-swap-partition-file-affect-the-system
If you're still interested, read these two links. A bit old though, but the only difference might be that Google has put an effort into making Android's way of freeing memory better. In that case, from what they say, I'd say there's a chance that swap will increase your performance.

Thank you, I've been reading up on swap as well, and it's not completely clear cut.
From your first link the argument:
"Having swap actually prevents the native Android memory management scheme from activating. The system sees memory and doesn't distinguish between physical and virtual. It will therefore prefer swap over the native Android memory management scheme, and won’t activate the native scheme until swap is full."
I believe this is just plain inaccurate. Even if you set swappiness to 100 android will terminate apps without filling the swap space, and swap is never treated as plain ram as far as I know.
Some real benchmarks is sourly needed though.

PremiumMediocre said:
Thank you, I've been reading up on swap as well, and it's not completely clear cut.
From your first link the argument:
"Having swap actually prevents the native Android memory management scheme from activating. The system sees memory and doesn't distinguish between physical and virtual. It will therefore prefer swap over the native Android memory management scheme, and won’t activate the native scheme until swap is full."
I believe this is just plain inaccurate. Even if you set swappiness to 100 android will terminate apps without filling the swap space, and swap is never treated as plain ram as far as I know.
Some real benchmarks is sourly needed though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I tried to find done benchmarks, but it seems like there are none...
And like I said, old links so Google might have done something about the issues they're talking about
Sent from my Incredible S using xda app-developers app

Also have a look in the desire Z section for this. They only have 512mb ram (we have 768) so they are always looking for ways to free up ram
There is a lot of discussion about swap so have a look there They might know a lot more compared with us

markj338 said:
Also have a look in the desire Z section for this. They only have 512mb ram (we have 768) so they are always looking for ways to free up ram
There is a lot of discussion about swap so have a look there They might know a lot more compared with us
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the speed of the processor is also important in this context since the native way to save memory is letting programs recreate the last state they were in before they were shut down. A fast processor would make swap less attractive.
In case you anyone wants to try, I'm using the Hunterwu kernel and used swapper 2 to activate the swap partition. The only hang up setting it up was that swapper 2 identified the wrong partition as swap but that could be manually changed.

PremiumMediocre said:
I think the speed of the processor is also important in this context since the native way to save memory is letting programs recreate the last state they were in before they were shut down. A fast processor would make swap less attractive.
In case you anyone wants to try, I'm using the Hunterwu kernel and used swapper 2 to activate the swap partition. The only hang up setting it up was that swapper 2 identified the wrong partition as swap but that could be manually changed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tell us if its any better, I might do the same

[TUTORIAL] Compcache and Swap

my 2c about compcache (now "zram") and swap
Both compcache and swap are used to improve performance AND maximum number of open apps.
1)How they work:
swap is the classic way to "increase" ram on a system.
Swap is a space on a non volatile memory (="not ram") where unused ram data are parked instead of being deleted.
Swap wears(and kills) memories it is put on. It is an heavy access file. Sdcards don't like it. They are not full-featured SSD Disks. Think of your photographs
Compcache is the new way to "increase" ram on a system,
compcache :
-reserves a part of you ram (cache),
-then it looks for unused data sitting on remaining, "real", ram,
-compresses these unused data (with a very primitive,loseless, algorithm) and
- send them to its cache OR to swapfile.
Compcache's trick works well when you have lots of higly,easily, compressable data in your ram. Text is higly compressable, an executable is less compressable.
1a)
-if, after compression , data are still "big" (compressed data > original data /2), then compcache sends compressed data to swap, not to cache.
-and when compcache is full, unused compressed data are sent to swap.
2) because of compression involved, compcache uses more cpu cycles than classic swap.
3) settings of both depends on
-hardware specs of the system.
-use of the system
4) compcache+swap is better than swap alone if your ram is filled with EASILY compressable data.
4a)Remember point 1a : compcache has a simple compression algorithm, and ALWAYS first compresses data.
AFTER COMPRESSION it decides if keeping them in cache or sending them to swap. This means that
if compcache has always to work with not compressable data, it will compress them AND send to swap. this means double work: compression AND swap access.
4b) First practical conclusion :
compcache is useful for people using LOTS of text-intensive apps (forums, webpages, docs, facebook)
compcache may be useful in apps using SIMPLE still images (some games, driving assistant)
compcache is useless in multimedia activity (watching youtube, movies, photographs, listening to mp3s, playing some other games.)
5) The swap file.
As told at the beginning, swap, both improve performance(=speed) AND number of apps simultaneously open.
Lets' take a look to the PERFORMANCE thing.
5a)On "classical" (fragmented, not-SSD hard disk) systems, a swap file is always faster than retrieving datas from original disk locations. EVEN IF the swap file is on the same disk where original datas are.
This happens mainly because :
5a1)-data in swap file are less fragmented, needing less seek time.
5a2)-swap file is usually put in the external (=fast) zone of an hard disk,
5b)On SSD systems (phones included) 5a1 and 5a2 are not true, and a swapfile is USELESS IN IMPROVING PERFORMANCE EACH TIME THAT it is keeping data which are already present on its same phisycal memory.
Examples :
5b1)opera browser executable is on phone memory; but Opera-cached-webpages have been moved on sdcard via app2sd.
In this situation a swap file on sdcard is obviously useless to improve internet browsing with Opera.
5b2) i use apps (facebook, Whatsapp) which DON'T have a good caching of their own. Swap could be useful: it could avoid re-downloading data from the internet.
Now, the INCREASE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF OPEN APPS argument.
This is always true.
So:
5c)swapfile on SSD speeds up multitasking ONLY IF you use apps that
-badly manage (or don't have) a cache of their own.
-don't like force closing
Since this seems to happen very often to android apps, a swapfile is useful.
5c1)Swapfile could speed multitasking also IF an app's well-designed-cache is on a media WAY SLOWER than swapfile (but this is not LG O2x situation: it has a class10 internal memory).
So, my 2 cents about "increasing" RAM in LG O2X is :
-leave apps on phone memory, and put swap on a class10 sdcard.
-enable compcache only if you use lots of text-rich apps.

First: I think this doesn't really fit into the development section.
Then: I can't second the post you made.
mercxda said:
Both compcache and swap are used to improve performance AND maximum number of open apps.
(...)
As told at the beginning, swap, both improve performance(=speed) AND number of apps simultaneously open.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
zRAM does NOT improve the speed of your device. Everything that's in the reserved zram storage will get compressed and decompressed, which takes some time (and cpu).
Swap is performing even worse. Instead of the fast RAM or the semi-fast compressed zRAM usage it's swapping onto the slow SD.
Sure, you can increase the maximum number of open apps, but the price is a lower performance.
So you're probably just meaning multitasking performance.
But still I can't agree to your conclusion:
mercxda said:
So, my 2 cents about "increasing" RAM in LG O2X is :
-leave apps on phone memory, and put swap on a class10 sdcard.
-enable compcache only if you use lots of text-rich apps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As I wrote above zRAM is way faster than swap. So zRAM should be the first choice if you're running into low RAM situations.
If you still need more go and enable swap as well.
Last but not least:
Why are you talking about compache all the time? It's called zram nowadays, so call it that way.

tonyp said:
First: I think this doesn't really fit into the development section.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First : thanks for your interest in this post . I partially agree with you: this post is on the borderline beetwen Q&A and Development, because swap is not a development matter, it's standard unix's way of working.
On the other side zram's use,way of working, and even its inclusion (or not) itself in default installs, is still under development.
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2012-December/014122.html
Sure, x86/x64 is not ARM. And CM is not ubuntu.
Then: I can't second the post you made.
zRAM does NOT improve the speed of your device. Everything that's in the reserved zram storage will get compressed and decompressed, which takes some time (and cpu).
Swap is performing even worse. Instead of the fast RAM or the semi-fast compressed zRAM usage it's swapping onto the slow SD.
Sure, you can increase the maximum number of open apps, but the price is a lower performance.
So you're probably just meaning multitasking performance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I, again , partially agree, i was fundamentally talking about multitasking performance. And sure, zram takes cpu cycles... I reserved a full, standalone point to say that.
But
i wouldn't be so sure about one being better than the other. My arguments are in the original post.
As I wrote above zRAM is way faster than swap. So zRAM should be the first choice if you're running into low RAM situations.
If you still need more go and enable swap as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As I wrote, and argumented, before, compcache/zram is way faster in a way limited range of situations.
Last but not least:
Why are you talking about compache all the time? It's called zram nowadays, so call it that way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because
1) I'm an old cat.
2) "Compcache" is a well chosen autodescriptive term.
3) It's been "compcache" for over 4/5 of it's life, and, well...
4) I'm an old cat. ;D
Have fun, and thanks for all your work in O2x developing.