> Gzip can be a bit slow. Luckily there is 'lzop' which is quite a lot > more CPU efficient on i386 and AMD64, and even on SPARC. If the > compressor is able to keep up with the network and disk, then it is > fast enough. See "http://www.lzop.org/";.
In my development/testing this week, I did "time zfs send | gzip --fast > somefile.gz" and also "time zfs send | threadzip --threads=8 > somefile.tz" ... Threadzip performed 10x faster (hardly a performance I expect from lzop) and compressed about 2-3% smaller than gzip. Also hardly a performance I could expect from lzop. The key is multiple cores. I'm on an 8-core xeon. As for "fast enough," the metric I'm using is: Can the compressor keep up with IO? I do this: "time zfs send > /dev/null" and "time zfs send | [compressor] > /dev/null" to see if the compressor has an impact on performance. I'm only at rev 1.0 of threadzip, and it is *far* from optimized. But it's still an order of magnitude better than the alternatives. So it'll only get better from here. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
