On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Paul Sandoz <Paul.Sandoz_at_sun.com> wrote:
>
...
> OK. This kind of reminds me of the various compression tradeoffs,
> size/performance, when enabled for ZFS (which can support LZJB or GZIP).
Definitely. Gzip is reasonably good at compression rate, and thus
suitable for bandwidth-constrained cases. LZF seems like a very good
candidate for more cpu-constrained (and perhaps latency-constrained)
cases. I am hoping it would be useful for cases where most other
compression methods are too slow to be considered. That may be part of
why Linux uses it for compressing boot images (although I assume its
utter simplicity is the driving reason -- code is very very small)
-+ Tatu +-