From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 4 16:05:45 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21A1E86B; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 16:05:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marck@rinet.ru) Received: from woozle.rinet.ru (woozle.rinet.ru [195.54.192.68]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A37E41ECA; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 16:05:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by woozle.rinet.ru (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r64G5hRD056185; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 20:05:43 +0400 (MSK) (envelope-from marck@rinet.ru) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 20:05:43 +0400 (MSK) From: Dmitry Morozovsky To: Volodymyr Kostyrko Subject: Re: ZFS default compression algo for contemporary FreeBSD versions In-Reply-To: <51D59B6C.5030600@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <51D576E1.6030803@gmail.com> <51D59B6C.5030600@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) X-NCC-RegID: ru.rinet X-OpenPGP-Key-ID: 6B691B03 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (woozle.rinet.ru [0.0.0.0]); Thu, 04 Jul 2013 20:05:43 +0400 (MSK) Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, avg@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 16:05:45 -0000 On Thu, 4 Jul 2013, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote: > > > > is it sane to just set 'zfs compression=on dataset' to achieve best algo > > > > on > > > > fresh FreeBSD systems (-current and/or stable/9)? > > > > > > No and this is not safe AFAIK. Default compression is still lzjb and > > > bootloader can't boot oof datasets compressed with lzjb. However on > > > stable/9 > > > you can simply set zfs compression=lz4 pool and everything would work fine > > > if > > > you updated the boot loader. > > > > I did not intend to compress root/boot datasets (and there is no much sense > > in > > this AFAICS); > > > > the second (and actually more important) my question is -- is lz4 in general > > better than lzjb? > > Yes. Much better in terms of speed. Then, next logical step semms to me is to make lz4 the default ;-P -- Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] [ FreeBSD committer: marck@FreeBSD.org ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------