Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:18:09 +0100 From: Marian Hettwer <mh@kernel32.de> To: Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net> Cc: Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net>, Pascal Stumpf <Pascal.Stumpf@cubes.de>, d@delphij.net, stable@freebsd.org, Martin Matuska <mm@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: MFC of ZFSv15 Message-ID: <34d8b7fa02247ed6e18293b7aa3fec27@localhost> 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 Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:42:36 +0200, Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:53:02AM +0100, Marian Hettwer wrote: >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:42:40 +0200, Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net> >> wrote: >> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 07:44:31AM +0200, Martin Matuska wrote: >> >> I have fixed the missing bits in r212688. >> >> >> >> Thanks for the notice. >> > >> > Just a thank you message for the v15 development, MFS and this fast >> > fix. Maybe this is just noise on the lists, but I think that too >> > little thanks get to the FreeBSD developers, so a little noise like >> > this may be beneficial. >> >> Agreed to that! Thanks for all the efforts in bringing ZFS to FreeBSD. >> I'm running 8.1-Release with v15 without any problems. >> >> I just copied a 21GB MySQL datadir from a linux box to my FreeBSD/zfs >> workstation. Thanks to zfs compression the 21GB only consume 10GB on >> zfs. >> That's massive compression :-) > > Related to this, I have a question. > Related, but on its way to get off topic... > Is it convenient to put databases on a compresed filesystem? Apart from > the space advantage, does it give any speed advantage/penalty? > At work we use Solaris 10 with zfs and compression enabled for our MySQL databases. All InnoDB. No speed penalty and only really slight advantages. I tend to say, it doesn't matter. It gives you more disk space by a wee bit of more CPU consumption. On the other hand, CPU is usually not your problem in a heavy load MySQL scenario. It's disc seek times... > Anyone has some benchmark or objective data about this? > No benchmarks and no time right now to come up with some fancy graphs. > Also are we talking about MyISAM or InnoDB tables? Or a mix of those? InnoDB. ./Marian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?34d8b7fa02247ed6e18293b7aa3fec27>