On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 03:04:56PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > 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) The current code assumes that files have consistent data in them. This is very true for the average data set, but it'll be horribly wrong for something like a database file. > > (2) An IOCTL for compression control. Userspace knows best, some > files ought to have a different compression policy. Yes, we'll get #2 added. -chris -- 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
