From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 341DFC29D for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:18:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0BD7431315 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:17:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:17:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 693764406C for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:17:29 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <378cc664-734c-dda8-b9e2-c9f75f35d223@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:17:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:108.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/108.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com> References: <20221104094934.1135932-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20221104094934.1135932-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.030 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: [pbs-devel] applied: [PATCH proxmox-backup v5] datastore: make 'filesystem' the default sync-level X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 09:18:01 -0000 Am 04/11/2022 um 10:49 schrieb Dominik Csapak: > rationale is that it makes the backup much safer than 'none', but does not > incur a big of a performance hit as 'file'. > > here some benchmark: > > data to be backed up: > ~14GiB semi-random test images between 12kiB and 4GiB > that results in ~11GiB chunks (more than ram available on the target) > > PBS setup: > virtualized (on an idle machine), PBS itself was also idle > 8 cores (kvm64 on Intel 12700k) and 8 GiB memory > > all virtual disks are on LVM with discard and iothread on > the HDD is a 4TB Seagate ST4000DM000 drive, and the NVME is a 2TB > Crucial CT2000P5PSSD8 > > i tested each disk with ext4/xfs/zfs (default created with the gui) > with 5 runs each, inbetween the caches are flushed and the filesystem synced > i removed the biggest and smallest result and from the remaining 3 > results built the average (percentage is relative to the 'none' result) > > result: > > test none filesystem file > hdd - ext4 125.67s 140.39s (+11.71%) 358.10s (+184.95%) > hdd - xfs 92.18s 102.64s (+11.35%) 351.58s (+281.41%) > hdd - zfs 94.82s 104.00s (+9.68%) 309.13s (+226.02%) > nvme - ext4 60.44s 60.26s (-0.30%) 60.47s (+0.05%) > nvme - xfs 60.11s 60.47s (+0.60%) 60.49s (+0.63%) > nvme - zfs 60.83s 60.85s (+0.03%) 60.80s (-0.05%) > > So all in all, it does not seem to make a difference for nvme drives, > for hdds 'filesystem' increases backup time by ~10%, while > for 'file' it largely depends on the filesystem, but always > in the range of factor ~3 - ~4 > > Note that this does not take into account parallel actions, such as gc, > verify or other backups. > > Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com> > --- > changes from v4: > * included benchmark & rationale in the commit message > > docs/storage.rst | 4 ++-- > pbs-api-types/src/datastore.rs | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > applied, thanks!