On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Haudy Kazemi wrote:
for text data, LZJB compression had negligible performance benefits (task times were unchanged or marginally better) and less storage space was consumed (1.47:1). for media data, LZJB compression had negligible performance benefits (task times were unchanged or marginally worse) and storage space consumed was unchanged (1:1). Take away message: as currently configured, their system has nothing to lose from enabling LZJB.
My understanding is that these tests were done with NFS and one client over gigabit ethernet (a file server scenario). So in this case, the system is able to keep up with NFS over gigabit ethernet when LZJB is used.
In a stand-alone power-user "desktop" scenario, the situtation may be quite different. In this case application CPU usage may be competing with storage CPU usage. Since ZFS often defers writes, it may be that the compression is performed at the same time as application compute cycles.
Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
