> [...] whereas ZFS, the most prominent candidate for this type of features, is not without hassle and it must be recompiled for every kernel update (although automation exists).
I have the feeling that this setup is even more of a hassle than ZFS.
I have the feeling that this setup is even more of a hassle than ZFS.
Hehe so true!
ZFS: >dd if=/dev/zero of=/path/to/testfile bs=1M count=18000 conv=fdatasync
That's stupid, writing zeros to ZFS just ~tests the compression speed, your file will have the size of a bit more than zero.
I'm sure it was oversight from your part.
and
https://linux.die.net/man/8/bonnie++
NOT dd NOT /dev/zero and NOT /dev/urandom
No it's stupid, benchmarks are already most of the time stupid.
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Faster-R...
EDIT: On the other hand leave it on, zfs tests the file if it's compress-able..if not it makes nothing:
https://klarasystems.com/articles/openzfs1-understanding-tra...
>>ZFS Compression, Incompressible Data and Performance
>>You may be tempted to set “compression=off” on datasets which primarily have incompressible data on them, such as folders full of video or audio files. We generally recommend against this – for one thing, ZFS is smart enough not to keep trying to compress incompressible data, and to never store data compressed, if doing so wouldn’t save any on-disk blocks.