Alejandro Vargas posted on Wed, 27 Apr 2016 11:29:31 +0200 as excerpted: >> Also there are two compress mount options that conflict with each >> other, is this intentional? > > I did not thought that compress and compress-force are incompatible... > The intention is to force it to compress the data for using lower disk > space. Compress-force should be enough?
Yes. Compress-force simply forces the compression instead of quick- testing whether the file seems easily/effectively compressed first (tho I think it still tests compressed block size and stores it uncompressed if the "compressed" block is actually larger, I don't believe it forces "compression" in /that/ case). It will result in better compression when the first 4k (I believe that's what the quick-test tests on) of a file doesn't compress well but much of the rest will. The problem with having both compress and compress-force in mount options is that I believe it's order-dependent which one ends up being applied, and unless you're a mount options guru, remembering whether it's the first or the last one that gets applied, or a special case where one overrules the other, is hard. So it's best just to use just the option you want and not confuse people, at least others trying to make sense of things even if you yourself know which one gets applied, with both. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
