Compression results

Let’s tally up.

For reference, this is one of a series of posts regarding compression testing on zpools:

1. Experimenting with compression off
2. Experimenting with compression=lz4
3. Experimenting with compression=zstd
4. Compression results – you are here

Samsung-SSD-870 4TB SSD

For the Samsung-SSD-870 4TB SSD no compression we had:

1. 2:34 = 154s
2. 2:32 = 152s
3. 2:30 = 150s
4. 3:52 = 238s
5. 4:46 = 286s
6. 4:16 = 256s
7. 4:15 = 255s
8. 4:15 = 255s
9. 4:49 = 289s

With lz4 we have:

1. 2:01 = 121s
2. 2:02 = 122s
3. 2:04 = 124s
4. 2:05 = 125s
5. 3:08 = 188s
6. 3:07 = 187s
7. 3:00 = 180s
8. 3:16 = 196s
9. 3:11 = 181s

With zstd we got:

1. 1:51 = 119s
2. 1:47 = 107s
3. 1:45 = 105s
4. 1:45 = 105s
5. 1:51 = 119s
6. 2:36 = 156s
7. 2:36 = 156s
8. 2:27 = 146s
9. 2:33 = 153s

The zpool sizes:

Samsung-SSD-870-no-compression    3.62T   324G  3.31T        -         -     0%     8%  1.00x    ONLINE  -
Samsung-SSD-870-compression-lz4   3.62T   191G  3.44T        -         -     0%     5%  1.00x    ONLINE  -
Samsung-SSD-870-compression-zstd  3.62T   148G  3.48T        -         -     0%     3%  1.00x    ONLINE  -

For the base.txz tarball contents, a combination of binary and some text, zstd is the clear winner here. Faster and more compressed.

Samsung-SSD-980-PRO 1TB NVMe

For no compression we had:

1. 1:42 = 102s
2. 1:44 = 104s
3. 1:45 = 105s
4. 1:44 = 104s
5. 1:42 = 102s
6. 1:44 = 104s
7. 1:43 = 103s
8. 1:42 = 102s
9. 1:48 = 108s

For lz4:

1. 1:42 = 102s
2. 1:42 = 102s
3. 1:41 = 101s
4. 1:43 = 103s
5. 1:43 = 103s
6. 1:42 = 102s
7. 1:42 = 102s
8. 1:43 = 103s
9. 1:48 = 108s

For ztd:

1. 1:42 = 102s
2. 1:40 = 100s
3. 1:35 = 95s
4. 1:32 = 92s
5. 1:33 = 93s
6. 1:33 = 93s
7. 1:30 = 90s
8. 1:33 = 93s
9. 1:31 = 91s

NAME                                  SIZE  ALLOC   FREE  CKPOINT  EXPANDSZ   FRAG    CAP  DEDUP    HEALTH  ALTROOT
Samsung-SSD-980-PRO-no-compression    928G   324G   604G        -         -     0%    34%  1.00x    ONLINE  -
Samsung-SSD-980-PRO-compression-lz4   928G   191G   737G        -         -     0%    20%  1.00x    ONLINE  -
Samsung-SSD-980-PRO-compression-zstd  928G   148G   780G        -         -     0%    15%  1.00x    ONLINE  -

Compressed and lz2 are nearly the same. ztd wins again on both speed and compression.

Samsung-SSD-990-EVO 4TB NVMe

With no compression:

1. 1:46 = 106s
2. 1:44 = 104s
3. 1:43 = 103s
4. 1:43 = 103s
5. 1:42 = 102s
6. 1:42 = 102s
7. 1:43 = 103s
8. 1:42 = 102s
9. 1:43 = 103s

With lz4 compression:

1. 1:46 = 106s
2. 1:48 = 108s
3. 1:48 = 108s
4. 1:42 = 102s
5. 1:42 = 102s
6. 1:42 = 102s
7. 1:43 = 103s
8. 1:42 = 102s
9. 1:43 = 103s

With zstd:

1. 1:30 = 90s
2. 1:29 = 89s
3. 1:30 = 90s
4. 1:30 = 90s
5. 1:28 = 88s
6. 1:28 = 88s
7. 1:28 = 88s
8. 1:28 = 88s
9. 1:27 = 87s

NAME                                  SIZE   ALLOC   FREE  CKPOINT  EXPANDSZ   FRAG    CAP  DEDUP    HEALTH  ALTROOT
Samsung-SSD-990-EVO-no-compression    3.62T   324G  3.31T        -         -     0%     8%  1.00x    ONLINE  -
Samsung-SSD-990-EVO-compression-lz4   3.62T   191G  3.44T        -         -     0%     5%  1.00x    ONLINE  -
Samsung-SSD-990-EVO-compression-zstd  3.62T   148G  3.48T        -         -     0%     3%  1.00x    ONLINE  -

Again, zstd for the win.

My conclusion: zstd wins. And I should be using the 4TB NVMe with zstd for my FreshPorts development nodes.