On 20 November 2014 15:34, Trent W. Buck <[email protected]> wrote: > Toby Corkindale <[email protected]> writes: > >> I ran a quick test using (non-zfs) equivalents of various compression >> tools, over a 2.0G filesystem image. (ie. hoping that represents a >> fair variety of binary+text files) >> >> xz 253s 103M > > That is substantially better compression ratio than what I see when > compressing root filesystems, e.g.
Oh, yeah, it's not remotely full, so there'll be a bunch of blank space in there. I would only pay attention to the relative sizes of the resulting compressed files, not the compression ratio from the start. thanks for the tip re parallelisable xz utils. _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
