Re: worse than expected compression ratios with -o compress

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, Sander wrote:

A fair comparison would be to compress the actual database files.

You are absolutely right. I've run some more tests, this time against the database files themselves.

This time there are 73 GB worth of database files:
delta-9 mysql # du -h
747K    ./mysql
0       ./test
73G     ./urd
73G     .

btrfs compresses this to 70 GB:
Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sdi              187G   70G  117G  38% /var/news/mysql

which is 96% compression ratio. I then tried compressing /var/news/mysql with some popular compressors.

zip -5, zip -9, and gzip all ended up producing archives that are roughly 11 GB: delta-9 btrfs-mysql-test-jim # ls -lh btrfs-mysql-test.gz btrfs-mysql-test-9.zip btrfs-mysql-test-5.zip
-rw-r--r-- 1 jim jim 11G 2010-01-18 01:50 btrfs-mysql-test-5.zip
-rw-r--r-- 1 jim jim 11G 2010-01-18 06:56 btrfs-mysql-test-9.zip
-rw-r--r-- 1 jim jim 11G 2010-01-18 02:17 btrfs-mysql-test.gz
delta-9 btrfs-mysql-test-jim #

This is a 15% compression ratio.

bzip2 produced an 8 GB archive, which is an 11% compression ratio:
-rw-r--r-- 1 jim jim 8.0G 2010-01-18 09:08 btrfs-mysql-test.bz2

7z produced a 6.1 GB archive, which is an 8% compression ratio:
-rw-r--r-- 1 jim jim 6.1G 2010-01-18 07:36 btrfs-mysql-test.7z

Finally, all of these are just command line compressors, I wanted to get a test in with actual disk compression software. I haven't had a DOS box running doublespace since I was rather young, so I plugged an extra drive into a Windows Vista machine, formatted it with NTFS, and enabled compression via the drive properties menu. I then copied the mysql data directory onto the compressed NTFS drive:
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/jfaulkne/ntfscompression1.jpg

The end result was 72.4 GB of data using 29.5 GB of disk space:
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/jfaulkne/ntfscompression2.jpg

This is a 41% compression ratio.

So, in summary, the compression ratios are:
btrfs: 96%
zip/gzip: 15%
bzip2: 11%
7z: 8%
NTFS: 41%

I think most would agree that btrfs is doing a rather poor job of compressing my data, even compared to gzip and NTFS compression. Thoughts?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux