On 07/10/12 12:45, Ferenc-Levente Juhos wrote:
Of course you don't see any difference, this is how it should work.
'ls' will never report the compressed size, because it's not aware of
it. Nothing is aware of the compression and decompression that takes
place on-the-fly, except of course zfs.
That's the reason why you could gain in write and read speed if you use
compression, because the actual amount of compressed data that is being
written and read from the pool is smaller than the original data. And I
think with the checksum test you prooved that zfs checksums the
No ZFS checksums are over the data as it is stored on disk so the
Darren J Moffat
zfs-discuss mailing list