Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 13:36:47 -0700 From: Xin Li <delphij@delphij.net> To: Volodymyr Kostyrko <c.kworr@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org, Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru>, Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: ZFS default compression algo for contemporary FreeBSD versions Message-ID: <51D5DCDF.2030503@delphij.net> In-Reply-To: <51D5DAB9.4070507@gmail.com> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1307041620420.2446@woozle.rinet.ru> <51D576E1.6030803@gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1307041950400.2446@woozle.rinet.ru> <51D59B6C.5030600@gmail.com> <51D59C88.9060403@FreeBSD.org> <51D5DAB9.4070507@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 7/4/13 1:27 PM, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote: > 04.07.2013 19:02, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> on 04/07/2013 18:57 Volodymyr Kostyrko said the following: >>> Yes. Much better in terms of speed. >> >> And compression too. > > Can't really say. > > When the code first appeared in stable I moved two of my machines > (desktops) to LZ4 recreating each dataset. To my surprise gain at > transition from lzjb was fairly minimal and sometimes LZ4 even > loses to lzjb in compression size. However better > compression/decompression speed and moreover earlier takeoff when > data is incompressible clearly makes lz4 a winner. I'm interested in this -- what's the nature of data on that dataset (e.g. plain text? binaries? images?) Cheers, -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJR1dzfAAoJEG80Jeu8UPuz84AIAMp8BT/a/H4tX1AzytmHxf5o zVC7yj59BnfmkgdeKbo49fIiEafg2FHRXNsGGQ/3TvMliDqmNPvTmJQwDApH9Efl oysm/OVcSy7ZtiT/3M2AQqNyzaIB90pidGYwO6oqZ7gwtMi6FJuiwZHsBMiHU92c F6tieTICIWKj8cF60oWBP+kx8oM4cTfdOt1S2SGfcaBySQdmw3B7Yxg7pLHoUZ1+ 6zcaoqFgSEIS8Svnk6pdOCRREUTcAKmE1W7SbEJEgeTbJ7TaCMt64yZoyQqeyayl KBo9v8/9mYwz89L1ljHoYAXInBMUQxqIiHPvN/H1QFSZomERaLjFSYDYaIbMGeQ= =6Zmf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51D5DCDF.2030503>