On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:42:36 +0200, Guido Falsi <m...@madpilot.net> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:53:02AM +0100, Marian Hettwer wrote: >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:42:40 +0200, Guido Falsi <m...@madpilot.net> >> wrote: >> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 07:44:31AM +0200, Martin Matuska wrote: >> >> I have fixed the missing bits in r212688. >> >> >> >> Thanks for the notice. >> > >> > Just a thank you message for the v15 development, MFS and this fast >> > fix. Maybe this is just noise on the lists, but I think that too >> > little thanks get to the FreeBSD developers, so a little noise like >> > this may be beneficial. >> >> Agreed to that! Thanks for all the efforts in bringing ZFS to FreeBSD. >> I'm running 8.1-Release with v15 without any problems. >> >> I just copied a 21GB MySQL datadir from a linux box to my FreeBSD/zfs >> workstation. Thanks to zfs compression the 21GB only consume 10GB on >> zfs. >> That's massive compression :-) > > Related to this, I have a question. > Related, but on its way to get off topic... > Is it convenient to put databases on a compresed filesystem? Apart from > the space advantage, does it give any speed advantage/penalty? > At work we use Solaris 10 with zfs and compression enabled for our MySQL databases. All InnoDB. No speed penalty and only really slight advantages. I tend to say, it doesn't matter. It gives you more disk space by a wee bit of more CPU consumption. On the other hand, CPU is usually not your problem in a heavy load MySQL scenario. It's disc seek times... > Anyone has some benchmark or objective data about this? > No benchmarks and no time right now to come up with some fancy graphs. > Also are we talking about MyISAM or InnoDB tables? Or a mix of those? InnoDB.
./Marian _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
