Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenix
lzjb requires the least amount of CPU, but only gives decent compression (don't expect more than 2:1). Use this for locations that you want to compress, but that are accessed frequently.
|
Further reading shows lzjb may be the better for MySQL using InnoDB.
Quote:
|
Whatever you configure the record size in MySQL is what you use for the record size in ZFS.
|
The comments on the linked page, and the MySQL dev centre, show this to be 16 KB.
Quote:
|
Considering how often MySQL data is accessed, you shouldn't compress it. You don't want anything to get in the way of your data I/O.
|
I tentatively sit corrected. At least for that one benchmark setup, lzjb compression saves you space without sacrificing performance.