Hello, Thanks everyone for posting feedback. More benchmarking results are available at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Changes/OptimizeSquashFS, including the 'plain' SquashFS filesystem. After performing the tests, I personally recommend to use xz compression with 1MiB block size, without bcj, on a 'plain' squash filesystem -- this will lead to a reduction of 142MiB on the ISO, compared to the stock Fedora 31 Workstation x86_64 image. Alternative compression options, such as Zstd, are also mentioned in the change proposal.
Select re-packaged ISOs of Fedora 31 Workstation x86-64 is available for download at https://khomutsky.com/fedora-dvd/ On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 5:34 PM Kamil Paral <kpa...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 5:46 PM Bohdan Khomutskyi <bkhom...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I posted more benchmark results in this article: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Changes/OptimizeSquashFS >> >> In short, bigger block size and higher compression ratio does not >> increase the installation time for Fedora Workstation. I saw the >> opposite effect. >> The Zstd compression performed worse than XZ in the compression test. On >> the other hand, 40% lower installation time for Zstd, was documented. Along >> with the CPU consumption 37% lower. >> All installation tests were performed from and to local NVMe storage. >> Which I consider far from real life scenario. >> > > This is very interesting, thank you! > > The "CPU user time" should be independent on the number of CPU cores you > have, is that correct? I.e. the number should be always roughly the same, > whether you run it on 1 core, 2 cores or 8 cores, right? I'm asking because > our QA tests often use 1-2 cores for installation, and I assume you used > all your available cores (if I read it correctly, you seem to have a 4 core > system), therefore the "real time" value is applicable just to your system, > but the "cpu user time" should be better comparable to other systems. > > How exactly did you measure those numbers, can you please provide > reproduction steps? > > I'm quite surprised that plain squashfs is a bit smaller, but also a bit > slower than squashfs+ext4. Our expectations were that it would be faster. > > Looking at compressions, the most interesting results for me are: > -comp xz, without -Xbcj x86 --- cutting CPU time by 50% at the expense of > 30MB is awesome > -Xdict-size 1M -b 1M, without -Xbcj x86 (optionally with hardlinking) --- > 33% speedup while also saving 110 MB > -comp zstd -Xcompression 15 -b 1M --- blazing fast installation with > cutting CPU time by 80%, but also increasing the size by 150 MB > > I'm sure different people will have different priorities regarding size > and installation time, but these are really interesting numbers, thanks for > benchmarking. > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > -- Bohdan Khomutskyi, RHCE Release configuration management engineer, PnT DevOps Red Hat Czech s.r.o T: +420532270289 IRC: bkhomuts
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
