On Aug 31, 2014, at 4:34 AM, Martin Steigerwald <Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I also use compress=lzo on it, although it I wonder whether its necessary as I > think the Crucial m500 mSATA SSD firmware compresses itself while the Intel > SSD 320 SATA SSD firmware does not. But still even with compression in the > firmware, it BTRFS compresses I can use more of the capacity. I wonder > whether this can harm the reliability of the SSD, if its firmware relies on > at least partly compressible data. Seems unlikely because application binaries aren't very compressible, and user videos/images aren't compressible at all because they're already highly compressed. > Hmmm, I see. Then it might not be compression at all what explains the > differences I see? I don't know. At the very least I'd repost with bug in caps in your subject, and point out the Used+Avail≠Size discrepancy, and include strace df results. I think your results are sufficiently confusing to consider it a bug. Chris Murphy -- 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
