>On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Kjetil Torgrim Homme<kjeti...@linpro=
>.no> wrote:
>> indeed. =A0I think only programmers will see any substantial benefi=
>t
>> from compression, since both the code itself and the object files
>> generated are easily compressible.
>
>>> Perhaps compressing /usr could be handy, but why bother enabling
>>> compression if the majority (by volume) of user data won't do
>>> anything but burn CPU?
>
>How do you define "substantial"? My opensolaris snv_111b installation
>has 1.47x compression ratio for "/", with the default compression.
>It's well worthed for me.
Indeed; I've had a few systems with:
UFS (boot env 1) UFS (boot env 2) swap
lucreate couldn't fix everything in one (old UFS) partition because of
dump and swap; with compression I can fit multiple environments (more
than two). I still use "disk swap" because I have some bad experiences
with ZFS swap. (ZFS appears to cache and that is very wrong)
Now I use:
rpool (using both the UFS partitions, now concatenated into one
slice) and real swap.
My ZFS/Solaris wish list is this:
- when you convert from UFS to ZFS, zpool create fails and requires
create if; I'd like zpool create about *all* errors, not just
one so you know exactly what collateral damage you would do)
"has a UFS filesystem"
"s2 overlaps s0"
etc
- zpool upgrade should fail if one of the available boot
environments doesn't support the new version (or upgrade
to the lowest supported zfs version)
Casper
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
