- "Ray Van Dolson" skrev:
> FYI;
>
> With 4K recordsize, I am seeing 1.26x dedupe ratio between the RHEL
> 5.4
> ISO and the RHEL 5.5 ISO file.
>
> However, it took about 33 minutes to copy the 2.9GB ISO file onto the
> filesystem. :) Definitely would need more RAM in this setup...
>
> Ra
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 01:10:44PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 01:03:32PM -0700, Brandon High wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> > > Makes sense. So, as someone else suggested, decreasing my block size
> > > may improve the deduplication
- "Brandon High" skrev:
> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Brandon High
> wrote:
> > No, that's the number that stuck in my head though.
>
> Here's a reference from Richard Elling:
> (http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2010-March/038018.html)
> "Around 270 bytes, or one 512
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Brandon High wrote:
> No, that's the number that stuck in my head though.
Here's a reference from Richard Elling:
(http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2010-March/038018.html)
"Around 270 bytes, or one 512 byte sector."
-B
--
Brandon High : bh...@f
- "Brandon High" skrev:
> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 3:26 AM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
> wrote:
> > - "Brandon High" skrev:
> >> Decreasing the block size increases the size of the dedup table
> >> (DDT).
> >> Every entry in the DDT uses somewhere around 250-270 bytes.
> >
> > Are you sure it's
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 3:26 AM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
> - "Brandon High" skrev:
>> Decreasing the block size increases the size of the dedup table
>> (DDT).
>> Every entry in the DDT uses somewhere around 250-270 bytes.
>
> Are you sure it's that high? I was told it's ~150 per block, or
- "Brandon High" skrev:
> Decreasing the block size increases the size of the dedup table
> (DDT).
> Every entry in the DDT uses somewhere around 250-270 bytes.
Are you sure it's that high? I was told it's ~150 per block, or ~1,2GB per
terabytes of storage with only 128k blocks
Vennlige hi
On 05.06.10 00:10, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 01:03:32PM -0700, Brandon High wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
Makes sense. So, as someone else suggested, decreasing my block size
may improve the deduplication ratio.
It might. It might make your
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 01:03:32PM -0700, Brandon High wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> > Makes sense. So, as someone else suggested, decreasing my block size
> > may improve the deduplication ratio.
>
> It might. It might make your performance tank, too.
>
> De
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> Makes sense. So, as someone else suggested, decreasing my block size
> may improve the deduplication ratio.
It might. It might make your performance tank, too.
Decreasing the block size increases the size of the dedup table (DDT).
Every e
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 12:37:01PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 11:16:40AM -0700, Brandon High wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> > > The ISO's I'm testing with are the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the
> > > RHEL5 DVD ISO's. While both ha
> Makes sense. So, as someone else suggested, decreasing my block size
> may improve the deduplication ratio.
>
> recordsize I presume is the value to tweak?
It is, but keep in mind that zfs will need about 150 bytes for each block. 1TB
with 128k blocks will need about 1GB memory for the index
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 11:16:40AM -0700, Brandon High wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> > The ISO's I'm testing with are the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the
> > RHEL5 DVD ISO's. While both have their differences, they do contain a
> > lot of similar data as well.
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> The ISO's I'm testing with are the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the
> RHEL5 DVD ISO's. While both have their differences, they do contain a
> lot of similar data as well.
Similar != identical.
Dedup works on blocks in zfs, so unless the i
I'm running zpool version 23 (via ZFS fuse on Linux) and have a zpool
with deduplication turned on.
I am testing how well deduplication will work for the storage of many,
similar ISO files and so far am seeing unexpected results (or perhaps
my expectations are wrong).
The ISO's I'm testing with a
15 matches
Mail list logo
