[15:38] <faekjarz> How would i benchmark SWAP memory space? I want at least avg throughput, perhaps IOPS. I'm sure, i'm not the 1st to attempt this - there must be a ready-to-use tool/procedure, right? ;) 
[15:40] <faekjarz> …can i mount my swap file as a block dev, and DD it? …that'd do it, i think
[18:35] <znf> faekjarz, why would you want to do that?
[18:59] <faekjarz> @znf: because i'd like to benchmark my SWAP mem
[18:59] <znf> It's swap, not memory 
[19:01] <faekjarz> …in my particular case, i've got a dm-crypt layer, in between NVMe Storage, and the actual SWAP FILE
[19:01] <faekjarz> …i'd like to benchmar it
[19:03] <faekjarz> ← is perfectly aware of all the layers - the dude just wants to benchmark his SWAP
[19:05] <faekjarz> there must be a "swap mem" benchmark tool! Logic dictates, i'm NOT the 1st to attempt such an endeavour
[19:08] <znf> There is not 
[19:08] <faekjarz> perhaps, we can StarFleet this issue ;) <3 
[19:10] <faekjarz> you sure about that, @znf? …i might just inquire  Linus himself …nuffing rong with that … LUL 
[19:11] <faekjarz> I'd like a SWAP benchmarking tool! -.-
[19:11] <znf> I'm very sure 
[19:11] <faekjarz> k
[19:11] <znf> Also Linus hasn't touched those parts of the kernel in years 
[19:12] <znf> There's other people that are much more appropriate to ask about swap performance that work on the Linux kernel these days 
[19:13] <znf> Either way, if you just want to test encrypted VS unencrypted performance, just test that directly 
[19:14] <znf> Also depending în what you're testing, I can tell you that a swap file is better than a dedicated swap partition these days 
[19:18] <faekjarz> thank you, @znf, technically, i just want to "benchmark" my SWAP (file) - i want throughput, perhaps IOPS. I wonder, can i mount it as a block dev, and get DD results?
[19:24] <faekjarz> …following the everything-is-a-file doctrine, i should be able to mount and DD-benchmark my swap thing, shouldn't i? …how would i do that?
[19:58] <sarnold> faekjarz: https://fio.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fio_doc.html#cmdoption-arg-filename
[20:19] <faekjarz> @sarnold: i'm not quite sure, how that contributes to benchmarking THE SWAP. Perhaps, if you don't mind, please elaborate, how i'd tune my Ubuntu boo params, accordingly. I'm certainly not a "please-bro", i'm happy to RTFM… why is your fedora example applicaple to my Ubuntu?
[20:22] <sarnold> faekjarz: fio is the most commonly used block IO benchmarking tool. it has a command line option to let you specify a file; I don't know if it can use your existing swap file, or if you'll just need to give it a path to where your swapfile is located, but that shouldn't give results too different from the existing swapfile
[20:57] <faekjarz> @sarnold: hmm, yeah, a file is a file - everything is a file - why wouldn't SWAP be A FILE …(loop?)mountable as a block dev? …the Kernel MUST grant me the power to write directly to SWAP, right? Do i need to run custom C-code?
[21:29] <sarnold> faekjarz: you could use losetup to mount it as a block device if you really must
[21:29] <sarnold> faekjarz: I'm hopeful that fio's --filename argument is enough to say that you don't need to :)
[21:37] <znf> still wasted time
[21:37] <znf> just get more ram
[21:43] <sarnold> yes
[21:45] <faekjarz> oh, of course - silly me - i could've just downloaded more RAM! LUL 
[21:45] <faekjarz> MAKE MY DAY!
[21:45] <faekjarz> <3
[21:48] <faekjarz> well, while we're all so intimate - my use case is:  swap file on a dm-crypt volume. CPU has more AES 512b prowess than  PCIe/NVMe Gen3 x4 bandwidth allows.
[21:51] <faekjarz> i still like to obtain actual, real-world, benchmarkable, performance figures. …i want to stress my SWAP …HOW TO? …anyone, bueller, bueller
[21:52] <faekjarz> ;) 
[21:55] <sarnold> faekjarz: what errors did you get with fio?
[21:56] <faekjarz> …i'm certainly not afraid of admitting insufficient education - this is NOT the barrier we're talking about! I intend to do SCIENCE, here! …I request your assistance!
[21:57] <faekjarz> i did not run fio, yet, @sarnold
[21:57] <sarnold> ah :) you should at least try the thing I suggested you to try two hours ago. You might have already had your answer had you tried. :)
[22:09] <faekjarz> ok, i'm sorry - i apologize - it's the local booze day (i'm a bit tipsy) - i might not magnificise at the extremity of my potential, today! I shall increase my strive towards perfection. (i hope, you'd enjoy this overly grande ductus) 
[22:13] <sarnold> ah, happy imbibing :)
[22:18] <faekjarz> imbibi-what? …my phasers are set to inebriate …yet, i still attempt to figure out complicasted stith …oof, i shouldn't be bothering with …uhm … wasting yourt 'ime 
[22:19] <faekjarz> …sorry 'bout that
[22:29] <znf> You're still wasting your time. You're eventually just benchmarking the file system, at best 
[22:30] <znf> Nobody made a swap benchmark because it's a stupid and unreliable test 
[22:35] <znf> put it this way: if nobody *probably* smarter than us ever bothered making a benchmark...
[22:35] <sarnold> yeah the whole point of swap is that it should be rarely used
[22:35] <sarnold> stuff that's not important gets shoved there, so memory can be used for something that is used
[22:36] <znf> and because this is the *-server channel, heck, there can be an argument to never really having swap enabled anyway
[22:37] <znf> the most I do on servers lately is to have zram 
[22:37] <znf> on the server that I do have swap, it's like 1-2 megabytes used
[22:37] <znf> looking at a 128GB server, with 8GB swap, I'm using 0
[22:37] <znf> on a 131 day uptime