Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 14:07:56 -0700 From: Xin Li <delphij@delphij.net> To: Volodymyr Kostyrko <c.kworr@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org, d@delphij.net, Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru>, Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: ZFS default compression algo for contemporary FreeBSD versions Message-ID: <51D5E42C.5010506@delphij.net> In-Reply-To: <51D5DEC4.2000101@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> <51D5DCDF.2030503@delphij.net> <51D5DEC4.2000101@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 7/4/13 1:44 PM, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote: > 04.07.2013 23:36, Xin Li wrote: >> -----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?) > > Triple no. Biggest difference in lzjb favor was at zvol with Mac OS > X Snow Leo. > > Maybe it's just because recordsize is too small on zvols? Anyway > the difference was like a 1% or 2%. Can't remember but can retest. Hmm that's weird. I haven't tried Mac iSCSI volumes but do have tried Windows iSCSI volumes, and lz4 was a win. It may be helpful if you can post your 'zfs get all <zvol name here>' output so we can try to reproduce the problem at lab? Cheers, -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJR1eQsAAoJEG80Jeu8UPuzj4sH/ipcY7uo5tvYFj5YJOpTBZgK CR6LVtSTmdVL9EXWQvLiT6pCSwxQcKhWWlGIhFjyacfVop8r/hGDjuB+HejtM3AT ryebN152Wt/5f15KZg5Wa6ccwIf50bS4H6sIDb6LcSxmHwEFh7U7+FqWbfIcvK/E zuYmmIgLAkpEav0BpfaTJvslL+dc2P11nDkMKe0nlAHeCeXouIQKwG0MleMowguq gZ+j01w2VYNnSOo5O7sBtl8k4J8p5tKwN/ZUDN2rLXLRR+shMqAGFjNAqJOvcqUe uTjskE0yph4LBQ2r0fcjxFrM3q4Cjj0kNi42my+7IjJbHWE9RiiXD/dboAJNhak= =A7yu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51D5E42C.5010506>