EdkJFXDVoAEXM2i.png

@scottalanmiller said in Transparent compression on folders in EXT4/XFS etc?:

@dafyre said in Transparent compression on folders in EXT4/XFS etc?:

@scottalanmiller said in Transparent compression on folders in EXT4/XFS etc?:

@dafyre said in Transparent compression on folders in EXT4/XFS etc?:

@scottalanmiller said in Transparent compression on folders in EXT4/XFS etc?:

@dafyre said in Transparent compression on folders in EXT4/XFS etc?:

Edit: I'm going to put my Zabbix instance on it later and see how it does.

Databases should not be compressed!

Details as to why databases should not be compressed?

Basically because they are always open and written to incrementally. They aren't loaded and rewriteen like most files are. And they tend to be very large, so a very intensive usage pattern.

True. But this compression is being done on the Host OS, not inside the Zabbix VM. I wonder what kind of strangeness this can cause. I don't have a lot of traffic on this particular server.

That doesn't affect anything. Compression is compression.

I'll find out what kind of performance hits I take with it on ZFS. So far, I'm seeing some nice space savings and no problems with anything else.

Long file names can be a serious pain... for copy and backup reasons.

I recall a NTG client that used a long name for the directories,.. and it made updating nearly impossible Should follow the KISS method... Directory names don't need to be 120 characters long,.. and four deep.

@gjacobse said in Using a VHD over (other) file for storage:

@MattSpeller said in Using a VHD over (other) file for storage:

TL;DR I'm not sure I'd do it (or why you are) but it would work just fine.

TL;DR? You reply twice, but didn't read it?

Honestly I just rambled quickly and forgot wtf you asked about XD

This looks interesting. I see more potential benefits from this in areas with low bandwidth and mobile devices.

@JJoyner1985 said in UNIX: What Is a Tarball:

So, do you think the reason I am seeing a lot more gzip in use with tarballs is due to the familiarity of gzip and the negligible difference in the compression between it and bzip2? Basically, bzip2 doesn't make enough of an improvement with sufficient regularity to entice people to move away from gzip, or is there some other benefit to gzip that my training material hasn't covered?

That's correct. The difference between the two is generally small enough that people are not concerned. And lots of systems still don't have bzip2 installed by default so if you want scripts or whatever to work universally you often use gzip because you know that it is always there and predictable.

@tonyshowoff said in Linux: Zip and 7Zip:

Sorry if this was mentioned but I didn't see it directly mentioned for clarity:

If your compression is unavailable directly in tar (-J being essentially 7zip, my favourite), you can tar it first (without compression) and then compress the tar, this maintains both Unix metadata and also gives the benefit.

Also, if you compress something already compressed you won't get the best benefit, at least not when it comes to using something as powerful as LZMA/7zip.

I believe that that is mentioned in the tar article.

It doesn't update as "new" when I just update the list. Only if I comment on the thread.

I've never read the Eula since I never considered installing it but I'm pretty sure that the time after the trial was actually a violation. The kind if stuff that the BSA looks for.