On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:56:39 +0000 Michael Kjörling <mich...@kjorling.se> wrote:
> On 31 Oct 2012 04:57 -0600, from cwi...@cwillu.com (cwillu): > > 9.08GB + 992.48MB*2 == 11.02GB > > > > 10.85GB + 518MB*2 == 11.86GB > > > > That's nearly a GB smaller. > > That, too; I missed the "DUP". Not quite as pronounced as in my > calculations, then, but still a significant enough difference. There is also a number of cases which justify disabling DUP for metadata, e.g. - underlying block device is an internally deduplicating SSD (i.e. possibly most of them) - or the block device is a RAID incorporating redundancy - or simply one wants increase performance at the cost of some reliability With non-DUP metadata your calculations showing inlining being more efficient remain correct. -- With respect, Roman ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Stallman had a printer, with code he could not see. So he began to tinker, and set the software free."
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
