From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.virtall.com ([178.63.195.102]:33434 "EHLO mail.virtall.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756952AbbLBJzH (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2015 04:55:07 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailext.virtall.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EE7B34C510 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 10:46:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from mailext.virtall.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (web1.virtall.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j-_xaLC155Xz for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 10:46:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from admin.virtall.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailext.virtall.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 10:46:30 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 18:46:30 +0900 From: Tomasz Chmielewski To: linux-btrfs Subject: compression disk space saving - what are your results? Message-ID: <4082684905f25f921ae4564b1c8a892e@admin.virtall.com> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: What are your disk space savings when using btrfs with compression? I have a 200 GB btrfs filesystem which uses compress=zlib, only stores text files (logs), mostly multi-gigabyte files. It's a "single" filesystem, so "df" output matches "btrfs fi df": # df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on (...) /dev/xvdb 200G 124G 76G 62% /var/log/remote # du -sh /var/log/remote/ 153G /var/log/remote/ From these numbers (124 GB used where data size is 153 GB), it appears that we save around 20% with zlib compression enabled. Is 20% reasonable saving for zlib? Typically text compresses much better with that algorithm, although I understand that we have several limitations when applying that on a filesystem level. Tomasz Chmielewski http://wpkg.org