Glad to co firm that ZFS wins this round. 20-40% better space usage and 15-30% less CPU. The reason is simple:
-
-
Replying to @janl
CouchDB compresses per-document and ZFS can operate on the whole database. The lower bound is one large db and the upper is many small ones
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @janl
that is precisely why I rely on ZFS compression for DalmatinerDB it’s hugely efficient!
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @janl
well but declare it a requirement :) wouldn’t be the first database that says “run on filesystem X”
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @heinz_gies
oh sure, just can’t afford to do this for CouchDB :)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @janl
well you can recommand it, if it gives your users that much of an improvement it’s a big win.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @heinz_gies
of course, just lost folks don’t want to run ZFS, can’t be helped ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @janl @heinz_gies
Emotional attachment to a particular filesystem... So weird! Just run the numbers!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @darachennis @janl
it is isn’t it? I’m factually attached to ZFS so, can’t complaint hat much :P
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
"factually attached" 



Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.