Re: worse than expected compression ratios with -o compress

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Jim Faulkner <jfaulkne@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>> Please let me know if this improves your ratios
>
> It most certainly does!  It also greatly reduced the time required to copy
> the data to my (not very fast) disk.  All my testing was done on 2.6.32.4.
> The line numbers in your patch were a little off for 2.6.32.4, but I did
> manage to apply it cleanly.  Here's the results of my testing:
[snip]
> I'd be very happy to see the -o compress-force option in the mainline kernel
> someday!


Sweet. But I think a force mount option is an unreasonably blunt tool.

I think two things would be nice:

(1) Fix the compression decision, I think this example suggests that
something is broken. (I'd noticed poorer than expected compression on
my laptop, but I'd chalked it up to the 64k blocks… now I'm not so
confident)

(2) An IOCTL for compression control.  Userspace knows best, some
files ought to have a different compression policy.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux