Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:04:43 +0200 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MFC of ZFSv15 Message-ID: <i6stk9$1u1$1@dough.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <20100916104236.GB33879@megatron.madpilot.net> References: <201009152007.17320.Pascal.Stumpf@cubes.de> <201009151830.o8FIUWEZ021844@lava.sentex.ca> <4C911AB0.6090901@delphij.net> <4C91AEBF.50502@FreeBSD.org> <20100916084240.GA33879@megatron.madpilot.net> <c142be4dda8ae79e9fe03eb8319094ee@localhost> <20100916104236.GB33879@megatron.madpilot.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 09/16/10 12:42, Guido Falsi wrote: > Related to this, I have a question. > > Is it convenient to put databases on a compresed filesystem? Apart from > the space advantage, does it give any speed advantage/penalty? It depends on what you do. It will not save you memory usage either since data needs to be decompressed when read. If the database is lightly loaded I don't think there will ever be problems. Also if the database is mostly read-only. If it's used in a heavy loaded read+write environment or if it is CPU-bound, it is probably a bad idea to put it on a compressed file system. > Anyone has some benchmark or objective data about this? I know about this one: http://don.blogs.smugmug.com/2008/10/13/zfs-mysqlinnodb-compression-update/ But it only really measures copy (cp) speeds and compression, not database performance. > Also are we talking about MyISAM or InnoDB tables? Or a mix of those? MyISAM would probably be faster to compress and manage :) http://www.scribd.com/doc/14603831/Optimizing-MySQL-Performance-with-ZFS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?i6stk9$1u1$1>