Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 00:34:57 +0000 From: Shiva Bhanujan <Shiva.Bhanujan@Quorum.net> To: Ronald Klop <ronald-lists@klop.ws>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Karli_Sj=F6berg?= <karli.sjoberg@slu.se>, Gary Palmer <gpalmer@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, Jeremy Faulkner <gldisater@gmail.com> Subject: RE: FreeBSD restartable send/receive over WAN Message-ID: <3A5A10BE32AC9E45B4A22F89FC90EC0701BDB12ABA@QLEXC01.Quorum.local> In-Reply-To: <op.ywdyg82mkndu52@53556c9c.cm-6-6b.dynamic.ziggo.nl> References: <0719669324a44fe0bfba3e8e08b0ae99@exch2-4.slu.se> <3A5A10BE32AC9E45B4A22F89FC90EC0701BDB12619@QLEXC01.Quorum.local>, <op.ywdyg82mkndu52@53556c9c.cm-6-6b.dynamic.ziggo.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I ran the same set of tests between 2 FreeBSD instances, connected on a 1G LAN. The the comms was setup using mbuffer. Here's the basic command. time zfs send -v <snapshot> | <compress> | mbuffer -O <IP>:8099 -b 1024 -m 128M -P 10 -q -l /tmp/mbuffer.log mbuffer -4 -I 8099 -b 1024 -m 128M -q -l /tmp/mbuffer.log | <uncompress> | zfs recv <snapshot> Here are the results that I got. no compression: real 3m18.591s user 0m0.390s sys 0m8.177s xz -0: real 7m26.349s user 7m6.436s sys 0m8.471s pxz -0: real 2m28.470s user 6m44.168s sys 0m12.002s gzip: real 3m12.482s user 3m8.260s sys 0m4.974s lz4: real 1m58.363s user 0m10.000s sys 0m8.708s lz4 still comes out best. Is there anything else that I might be missing in my tests? don't have a real setup at this time to test WAN connections, but I'd like to think that these results can be extrapolated to a WAN link also. ________________________________________ From: Ronald Klop [ronald-lists@klop.ws] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:44 AM To: Karli Sjöberg; Gary Palmer; Shiva Bhanujan Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Jeremy Faulkner Subject: Re: FreeBSD restartable send/receive over WAN On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:04:16 +0100, Shiva Bhanujan <Shiva.Bhanujan@quorum.net> wrote: > thanks for all the pointers for the compression algorithms. I ran a few > tests to compare compression overhead. These are local zfs > send/receive, and no network is involved. > > time zfs send -v <src-snapshot> | <compress> | <uncompress> | zfs > receive -s <dst-snapshot> > > Here are the performance results that I got. > > no compression: > real 0m20.892s > user 0m0.000s > sys 0m5.587s > > xz -0: > real 8m38.569s > user 10m28.551s > sys 0m6.866s > > pxz -0: > real 4m38.448s > user 10m55.863s > sys 0m13.324s > > gzip: > real 3m51.297s > user 4m12.035s > sys 0m4.696s > > lz4: > real 0m29.912s > user 0m16.543s > sys 0m10.810s > > > lz4 has the least overhead in terms of time. pxz/xz seem to be > prohibitive give the above results. Unless, there is something basic > I'm missing? > > I was really hoping that compressed sends would be available, as that > would actively eliminate this overhead, given that we use lz4 as the > compression algorithm when writing to disks. Why don't you test this with a network in between? That would give much more valuable numbers to compare for your use case. The number above say nothing about the gain vs the bottleneck you are trying to remove. Ronald. > > > ________________________________ > From: Karli Sjöberg [karli.sjoberg@slu.se] > Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2017 8:41 AM > To: Gary Palmer > Cc: Shiva Bhanujan; Jeremy Faulkner; freebsd-fs@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: FreeBSD restartable send/receive over WAN > > > Den 26 feb. 2017 4:16 em skrev Gary Palmer <gpalmer@freebsd.org>: >> >> On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 02:08:59PM +0000, Shiva Bhanujan wrote: >> > The compression that we use on our ZFS filesystems is lz4. So, if I >> have to pipe it through a compression algorithm, that'd be >> uncompressing and compressing it 4 times. >> > >> > disk (lz4) -> zfs send (uncompress) -> compress (gzip) -> (network) >> -> uncompress (gzip) -> zfs recv (compress) -> disk (lz4) >> > >> > isn't this quite expensive? We have to transfer multi terabyte files >> on a WAN link. I'm also of the understanding that gzip by itself is >> single-threaded, so that'd peg one of the CPUs to 100%. there might be >> other compression algorithms that can be used, but sending the ZFS as >> it is compressed on the filesystem is something that would be optimal, >> and would reduce the overhead of the additional [de]compressions that >> are taking place? >> >> Without going into the efficiency part of your message: >> >> archivers/pigz: Parallel GZIP >> archivers/pbzip2: Parallel BZIP2 >> archivers/pixz: Parallel, indexing version of XZ >> archivers/pxz: Parallel LZMA compressor using liblzma > > Also worth mentioning is, obviously: > archivers/lz4 > > :) > > /K > >> >> Regards, >> >> Gary >> >> > >> > ________________________________________ >> > From: owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org [owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org] on >> behalf of Jeremy Faulkner [gldisater@gmail.com] >> > Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 4:03 PM >> > To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org >> > Subject: Re: FreeBSD restartable send/receive over WAN >> > >> > Pipe it through a compressor >> > >> > On 2017-02-25 2:09 PM, Shiva Bhanujan wrote: >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > I just tried restartable send/receive in 10.3 and it works like a >> charm. I was wondering if compressed send has made its way into >> FreeBSD? I checked 10.3 and 11.0-RELEASE, and I don't see the >> -c/--compressed option. Any pointers? >> > > >> > > Regards, >> > > Shiva >> > > >> > > >> > > ________________________________________ >> > > From: owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org [owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org] >> on behalf of Adam Nowacki [nowakpl@platinum.linux.pl] >> > > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 10:41 AM >> > > To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org >> > > Subject: Re: FreeBSD restartable send/receive over WAN >> > > >> > > On 2017-02-16 19:22, Shiva Bhanujan wrote: >> > >> Hello, >> > >> >> > >> I was wondering if restartable send/receive is available in >> FreeBSD? We're running 10.2 and have a requirement of sending and >> receiving ZFS snapshots over a WAN link. The snapshots could be more >> than a few terabytes. >> > >> >> > >> Can somebody please give me pointers, and if this feature is or >> isn't available in FreeBSD? >> > > >> > > FreeBSD 10.3 and later. >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list >> > > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs >> > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to >> "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list >> > > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs >> > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to >> "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list >> > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs >> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> > _______________________________________________ >> > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list >> > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs >> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A5A10BE32AC9E45B4A22F89FC90EC0701BDB12ABA>