From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47010) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jMpax-0003rq-6z for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 05:05:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jMpaw-0003cW-5b for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 05:05:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:43218) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jMpaw-0003cP-2k for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 05:05:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jMpav-0004Qu-Rv for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 05:05:01 -0400 Subject: [bug#40236] [PATCH] doc: Suggest Btrfs with compression instead of ext4 for root partition. Resent-Message-ID: From: Pierre Neidhardt In-Reply-To: <20200410082425.GA1518@E5400> References: <87lfnesxp6.fsf@gnu.org> <87pncqbbp5.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87zhbuqpns.fsf@gnu.org> <87y2rc6nuk.fsf@gmail.com> <87r1x0welb.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87o8s3wz7d.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87o8s2k6lr.fsf@gmail.com> <20200409201244.GR1518@E5400> <87o8rzvlg9.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <20200410082425.GA1518@E5400> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:04:17 +0200 Message-ID: <87eesvvhim.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Efraim Flashner Cc: Jonathan Brielmaier , Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , 40236@debbugs.gnu.org, Maxim Cournoyer --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Efraim Flashner writes: > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 09:39:18AM +0200, Pierre Neidhardt wrote: >> > So compression saves me 26% ([69-51]/69), and deduplication saves me >> > 62% ([180-69]/180). >>=20 >> Thanks for sharing! >> zstd might give better results. Any reason you chose lzo over zstd? >>=20 > > My machine is about 10 years old so I was more concerned than normal > about the CPU usage. If lz4 was an option I would've gone with that, but > according to the Arch wiki or some other locations lzo was basically the > fastest option. I've tried zstd on an AMD Athlon II X4 635 (2010): it's perfectly smooth, can't notice any performance drop. In fact, I wonder if it's not even faster than before, but it's hard to measure. Note that Arch Wiki tends to be on the conservative side when it comes to performance. I would not use it as a reference for the general case: it may guide users to sacrifice convenience and features over unnoticeable performance gains. Cheers! =2D-=20 Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAl6QNpEACgkQm9z0l6S7 zH9vfQf9Fs1ohFr7YRR5jKPLho8OnuyHO1HSuMYCdLLAZOGxNhMLee7z6IjZ10ir XKtaBFEkWQsQXc70GLXWiPHZWR3Mi/0uzndQitngZ8hcs5ZGxtzoPPgTNgIlAONa CRNKqLCTVF49hXusl8HE9lDDxuxmvxrj5oC4OjwmHblfGtxL0R43joKtNAClVPb4 YA4e0IX49+W8R91KRiAE09bFvGKmXw9CsdvD+XOmUg4wds/1uyoI8w6R5HkYIA6m FG4mthYYEvlBi7CfB9FnHspybdFB2Wyuer7+fSVczBYM13qCrih7pybHkFaBazWD Doxv8+dKGEhK1WqjIRIGD0OHPXV6mw== =yQSp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--