Hello all,

  While revising my home NAS which had dedup enabled before I gathered
that its RAM capacity was too puny for the task, I found that there is
some deduplication among the data bits I uploaded there (makes sense,
since it holds backups of many of the computers I've worked on - some
of my homedirs' contents were bound to intersect). However, a lot of
the blocks are in fact "unique" - have entries in the DDT with count=1
and the blkptr_t bit set. In fact they are not deduped, and with my
pouring of backups complete - they are unlikely to ever become deduped.

  Thus these many unique "deduped" blocks are just a burden when my
system writes into the datasets with dedup enabled, when it walks the
superfluously large DDT, when it has to store this DDT on disk and in
ARC, maybe during the scrubbing... These entries bring lots of headache
(or performance degradation) for zero gain.

  So I thought it would be a nice feature to let ZFS go over the DDT
(I won't care if it requires to offline/export the pool) and evict the
entries with count==1 as well as locate the block-pointer tree entries
on disk and clear the dedup bits, making such blocks into regular unique
ones. This would require rewriting metadata (less DDT, new blockpointer)
but should not touch or reallocate the already-saved userdata (blocks'
contents) on the disk. The new BP without the dedup bit set would have
the same contents of other fields (though its parents would of course
have to be changed more - new DVAs, new checksums...)

  In the end my pool would only track as deduped those blocks which do
already have two or more references - which, given the "static" nature
of such backup box, should be enough (i.e. new full backups of the same
source data would remain deduped and use no extra space, while unique
data won't waste the resources being accounted as deduped).

What do you think?
//Jim
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Reply via email to