ZFS default compression algo for contemporary FreeBSD versions

[Xin Li]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 7/4/13 1:44 PM, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
> 04.07.2013 23:36, Xin Li wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
>> 
>> On 7/4/13 1:27 PM, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
>>> 04.07.2013 19:02, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>>> on 04/07/2013 18:57 Volodymyr Kostyrko said the following:
>>>>> Yes. Much better in terms of speed.
>>>> 
>>>> And compression too.
>>> 
>>> Can't really say.
>>> 
>>> When the code first appeared in stable I moved two of my
>>> machines (desktops) to LZ4 recreating each dataset. To my
>>> surprise gain at transition from lzjb was fairly minimal and
>>> sometimes LZ4 even loses to lzjb in compression size. However
>>> better compression/decompression speed and moreover earlier
>>> takeoff when data is incompressible clearly makes lz4 a
>>> winner.
>> 
>> I'm interested in this -- what's the nature of data on that
>> dataset (e.g. plain text? binaries? images?)
> 
> Triple no. Biggest difference in lzjb favor was at zvol with Mac OS
> X Snow Leo.
> 
> Maybe it's just because recordsize is too small on zvols? Anyway
> the difference was like a 1% or 2%. Can't remember but can retest.

Hmm that's weird.  I haven't tried Mac iSCSI volumes but do have tried
Windows iSCSI volumes, and lz4 was a win.

It may be helpful if you can post your 'zfs get all <zvol name here>'
output so we can try to reproduce the problem at lab?

Cheers,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJR1eQsAAoJEG80Jeu8UPuzj4sH/ipcY7uo5tvYFj5YJOpTBZgK
CR6LVtSTmdVL9EXWQvLiT6pCSwxQcKhWWlGIhFjyacfVop8r/hGDjuB+HejtM3AT
ryebN152Wt/5f15KZg5Wa6ccwIf50bS4H6sIDb6LcSxmHwEFh7U7+FqWbfIcvK/E
zuYmmIgLAkpEav0BpfaTJvslL+dc2P11nDkMKe0nlAHeCeXouIQKwG0MleMowguq
gZ+j01w2VYNnSOo5O7sBtl8k4J8p5tKwN/ZUDN2rLXLRR+shMqAGFjNAqJOvcqUe
uTjskE0yph4LBQ2r0fcjxFrM3q4Cjj0kNi42my+7IjJbHWE9RiiXD/dboAJNhak=
=A7yu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----