I have seen similar advantages comparing XFS to ZFS+compression on a local server (Centos 6.3, ZFS on Linux 0.61).
Using a 2 disk striped volume for PostgreSQL 9.2, I get an average of 2.5X compression (as reported by ZFS), and a 1.5 to 2X time reduction in database restores (single threaded or 8 jobs in parallel).
Given this development box has relatively slow 7200 RPM disks, the tradeoff of more CPU time for less disk transfer makes sense.
Edit: My use case is an OLAP server. I can't state how the tradeoffs affect OLTP performance.
Comments
I have seen similar advantages comparing XFS to ZFS+compression on a local server (Centos 6.3, ZFS on Linux 0.61).
Using a 2 disk striped volume for PostgreSQL 9.2, I get an average of 2.5X compression (as reported by ZFS), and a 1.5 to 2X time reduction in database restores (single threaded or 8 jobs in parallel).
Given this development box has relatively slow 7200 RPM disks, the tradeoff of more CPU time for less disk transfer makes sense.
Edit: My use case is an OLAP server. I can't state how the tradeoffs affect OLTP performance.