I realize that I've posted some dumb things in this thread so here's a
re-cast summary:
1) In the past, I experimented with fikesystem backups, using my own
file-level checksumming that would detect when a file was already in
the backup repository, and add a hard link rather than allocate new
bloc
On 03/20/2010 06:16 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 03/20/2010 05:24 PM, Boyd Waters wrote:
On Mar 20, 2010, at 9:05 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
My dataset reported a dedup factor of 1.28 for about 4TB, meaning
that
almost a third of the dataset was duplicated.
It is always interesting to compare thi
On 03/20/2010 05:24 PM, Boyd Waters wrote:
On Mar 20, 2010, at 9:05 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
My dataset reported a dedup factor of 1.28 for about 4TB, meaning
that
almost a third of the dataset was duplicated.
It is always interesting to compare this to the rate you would get
with old fashion
On Mar 20, 2010, at 9:05 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>>
>> My dataset reported a dedup factor of 1.28 for about 4TB, meaning
>> that
>> almost a third of the dataset was duplicated.
> It is always interesting to compare this to the rate you would get
> with old fashioned compression to see how effecti
On 03/19/2010 10:46 PM, Boyd Waters wrote:
2010/3/17 Hubert Kario:
Read further, Sun did provide a way to enable the compare step by using
"verify" instead of "on":
zfs set dedup=verify
I have tested ZFS deduplication on the same data set that I'm using to
test btrfs. I used a 5-eleme
2010/3/17 Hubert Kario :
>
> Read further, Sun did provide a way to enable the compare step by using
> "verify" instead of "on":
> zfs set dedup=verify
I have tested ZFS deduplication on the same data set that I'm using to
test btrfs. I used a 5-element radiz, dedup=on, which uses SHA256 for
ZFS
On Wednesday 17 March 2010 16:33:41 Leszek Ciesielski wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Hubert Kario wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 March 2010 09:48:18 Heinz-Josef Claes wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> just want to add one correction to your thoughts:
> >>
> >> Storage is not cheap if you think abou
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Hubert Kario wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 March 2010 09:48:18 Heinz-Josef Claes wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> just want to add one correction to your thoughts:
>>
>> Storage is not cheap if you think about enterprise storage on a SAN,
>> replicated to another data centre. Using
On Wednesday 17 March 2010 09:48:18 Heinz-Josef Claes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just want to add one correction to your thoughts:
>
> Storage is not cheap if you think about enterprise storage on a SAN,
> replicated to another data centre. Using dedup on the storage boxes leads
> to performance issues an
Hi,
just want to add one correction to your thoughts:
Storage is not cheap if you think about enterprise storage on a SAN,
replicated to another data centre. Using dedup on the storage boxes leads to
performance issues and other problems - only NetApp is offering this at the
moment and it's no
On 17/03/2010 01:45, Hubert Kario wrote:
On Tuesday 16 March 2010 10:21:43 David Brown wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if there has been any thought or progress in
content-based storage for btrfs beyond the suggestion in the "Project
ideas" wiki page?
The basic idea, as I understand it, is that a l
On 16/03/2010 23:45, Fabio wrote:
Some years ago I was searching for that kind of functionality and found
an experimental ext3 patch to allow the so-called COW-links:
http://lwn.net/Articles/76616/
I'd read about the COW patches for ext3 before. While there is
certainly some similarity here,
On Tuesday 16 March 2010 10:21:43 David Brown wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if there has been any thought or progress in
> content-based storage for btrfs beyond the suggestion in the "Project
> ideas" wiki page?
>
> The basic idea, as I understand it, is that a longer data extent
> checksum i
Some years ago I was searching for that kind of functionality and found
an experimental ext3 patch to allow the so-called COW-links:
http://lwn.net/Articles/76616/
There was a discussion later on LWN http://lwn.net/Articles/77972/
an approach like COW-links would break POSIX standards.
I am no
14 matches
Mail list logo
