Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Btrfs Zstd Compression Benchmarks On Linux 4.14

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • barureddy
    replied
    Fedora just release 4.14 through the standard update channels and I have been pleased with BTRFS with zstd compression enabled. I used to use the standard compression, zlib, for a while and while I was pleased with the compression, the performance on my laptop's small ssd would leave me hanging from time to time. After switching from zlib to zstd, I have not noticed any slow downs and it feels almost as fast as when I had ext4 on the system. ZSTD is an impressive compression algorithm that these benchmarks don't give it justice to in everyday usage.

    Leave a comment:


  • thelongdivider
    replied
    The real advantage over LZO is the compression ratio.

    Leave a comment:


  • tkaiser
    replied
    Originally posted by phoronix View Post
    Here are some benchmarks of Zstd Btrfs compression compared to the existing LZO and Zlib compression mount options.
    The 'Compile Bench' test shows with btrfs defaults lower numbers and higher CPU utilization at the same time. How's that possible? Which cpufreq governor was in use? Performance or something else?

    Leave a comment:


  • R41N3R
    replied
    I wonder as well about the compression ratio on a file server in a real world scenario. In my case I'm interested if it is worth to switch from lzo to zstd.

    Leave a comment:


  • kaprikawn
    replied
    I've got a server which primarily is a file server, CPU usage and the like aren't my major concerns, compression rates are. When the amount of data you're using is measured in terabytes you can fit a lot more data on if the compression technique is more aggressive.

    I started out with lzo because I didn't know any better when I first used btrfs, I just saw it on the Arch wiki or an online tutorial, tried it and it worked (and I got noticeably more data on my disks). I've since enabled zlib on the latest disk I added more recently. I'm very happy with the results.
    Last edited by kaprikawn; 14 November 2017, 08:34 AM. Reason: typo

    Leave a comment:


  • s_j_newbury
    replied
    Originally posted by Ropid View Post

    There's no lz4 support.
    There was a patch enabling lz4 floating around for a while. I gave it a go and found it worked well, but lz4hc support was buggy and would fail on decompression at times. I believe, because of the unresolved lz4hc issue which presumably could have also affected standard compression although it never showed up, the code wasn't accepted upstream.

    Leave a comment:


  • Althorion
    replied
    Please, grep ZSTD /boot/config-4.14.0-999-generic. Enough with the cat abuse!

    Leave a comment:


  • Ropid
    replied
    Originally posted by bnolsen View Post
    do they support lz4? That would seem to be a good option as it shouldn't add any appreciable time either direction.
    There's no lz4 support.

    Leave a comment:


  • bnolsen
    replied
    do they support lz4? That would seem to be a good option as it shouldn't add any appreciable time either direction.

    Leave a comment:


  • arbition
    replied
    When I was working with virtual machine overlays with lots of zeros for sparsification (though this was a bug in the sparsification program) I found compression of the overlay file via FS compression made for a very good use case (image file was from a real disk, around 1TB)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X