On 2012-07-10 13:45, 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.

Yep, my fault. You are right:
root@sct-caszonesrv-07:/opt/test# du -hs u*
1.4M    unix1
820K    unix2

Good article in here:

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
uncompressed data.

Thanks for the explanation.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
zfs-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to