From nobody Wed Oct 18 07:21:29 2023 X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4S9Mj93ZP5z4xf0C for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2023 07:21:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from infoomatic@gmx.at) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mout.gmx.net", Issuer "Telekom Security ServerID OV Class 2 CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4S9Mj82ZqZz3TC6 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2023 07:21:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from infoomatic@gmx.at) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=gmx.at header.s=s31663417 header.b=RCjhE29h; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of infoomatic@gmx.at designates 212.227.17.21 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=infoomatic@gmx.at; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmx.at DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.at; s=s31663417; t=1697613690; x=1698218490; i=infoomatic@gmx.at; bh=btm0HDQwyRBoYlYW4Ke6JvyrWsDYe9wDD4KRSKOGT3s=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=RCjhE29hp7m1rBD9IwZqL3DZOvIpa9LZhHhLzeCpd8302zSvZlvLYpZs4Do+9gZKBqWLeDDpZ3B GeoAH07j0ppWEi0JnH4USaH68qoGa8uhwT0wfvs3hYEcsx8D5oYs7q4bs5bsdUpCpLBw9tPQXcDQQ 7zmgIiUDYdNAuGbkD6XoupP3bgTvD+oWY4ycNqO95MMXGzxnjUUxyiJoPOam1rxP4z3sYUSwdMyK6 OYqDA89p+eHVfgbWIQO6KQzgGi1nu0TT/8PqKLLR15J70RZQ0F1uCT32JQ9JcWg9oo62N76UmHWPT wOgrEbUchbqJy7tUtIgbZ+RibqqSE6k52ImQ== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from [10.0.1.209] ([178.114.179.147]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1N33ET-1rXP8R1DRt-013Jpv for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2023 09:21:30 +0200 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 09:21:29 +0200 List-Id: Filesystems List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-fs List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: performance impact of various compression schemes on a zvol To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org References: Content-Language: en-US From: infoomatic In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:a76WxvKry88+F5b2wcBm8LVzDcC+qKxR0+ie2z/rNlVAl/1sM2/ 69zaCBGRd/q1n05Ae/PyiidfOQ7yeoRcMNhjPOKXKir1zZXaMH2Pzvp9p2PqaudZ+Bz//+Y hGFV4BlwyG8TLsMzuVS7Xs4ApyRtpySgXI7GmGfxe8pv9Q+iGsoahnwgdR3t8uV2/7lDLEj XnaB/53OGqENCtzslyYTA== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:nqSakQt7UOo=;2SugU/MCxUeFn4Th86dyYUzB9I4 QHLE6TAjCv68I0+Nb4m2bRCpeMovOvcTDbSDfq37cd8QRzpX+2KMq/3QSHj5VX/qM+u66v6+Q eS0UzmmeuVbPyzC77IKUW16S32F+L5B+5eeCrgNkJFXKRy7lmm9byCskEe0wFXRB3ezwqlYj1 mFDcgF70WMxlzFU93xPS4c6Fbd1sZOLklHUinkvhyyeuxEgjF57qfhMrgfLE68PzZMrudREn6 n0vBRn3hpHu8EWwU7HR5HxLsDmdfBCyHWkYa2IJ8qYTcxqB2CoT1fqdkvCmwarUVkq1WtPLYr XoMCyGxNiAsfpqmQly+BAvBgKgGFJYnELDVmNpUxHyI9SQXmmh48NPprMWXrKhvoWFg/8jNUI 6vjv543b8RGS4XbWxgh0KTsqlzPtEAKsYCM1RNMqLySLPW5JkTXoOmGflZ5hA2hT66WOixw/J OuXg2+KX+KmgZGzs8Ppg8uOXZ17byeImkU5oLBZdpiDlzeFlEOIaHeVZaTOfETcz6nidCH57E owhv8yIXqI6fYHXDHPpzQ05g70eKu+QSr/3FeTcMcKtW/CmV1f6I8LwU9T865s3gGyZnIyyWH kIbq4tMKKSzkwsofzDUoeaH8yGNeIJ2cu1jijaTKixPcbSJYp5lPZ5mqK5uce7ogZD/y1R4/d raXNfdNySvZHJWzPeolthHlKbmwVyVv1nqTkR1MYE7XLQTuzc2ODCK5lCd66JtlMx26EUgRTg Eki31U5f2omm1VEQwDsORX/xM5EEpAvKpY1ARNZzPMzLBG6a850+4Aq0TWjZUYXxCMAj8oK0w n+rxaU0jCqNTjfdTg+QcqyvpOr1JBIw+HmE/F9FWbRHIveY3P9iY3q/4PU0tHaQwpCE2ckE2m pg/a8CQsnNAgpnwzXB4G3nLIu5RtiC+J4HRXCENTDwUTgaXlx79HbnlyNEr3bdgryKIwvHSrS P3k70g== X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.19 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-0.997]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[gmx.at,none]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[gmx.at:s=s31663417]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:212.227.17.0/27]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_VERYGOOD(-0.20)[212.227.17.21:from]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[212.227.17.21:from]; ONCE_RECEIVED(0.10)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; XM_UA_NO_VERSION(0.01)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-fs@freebsd.org]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-fs@freebsd.org]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:8560, ipnet:212.227.0.0/16, country:DE]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[gmx.at:+]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmx.at]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmx.at]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4S9Mj82ZqZz3TC6 On 18.10.23 00:33, void wrote: > What's the perfomance penalty on zvols of compression? > The impact on the host? This totally depends on your data. I did some tests on our mailserver, and for us it boiled down to: *) use lz4 if performance is very important, and compression rate not so much. We found that the impact of lz4 is so fast that our workloads were quite faster than any test without compression, so I would say you can set lz4 in any way (lz4 is very fast on detecting incrompressible data) *) use between zstd-6 and zstd-9 (not too much difference in our tests) if you want a nice balance where performance is not too much affected and we reach a nice level of compression, however, of course your definition of "maximum performance penalty" may be different. You could check out lzbench. Regards, Robert