Software Deduplication: Quick comparison of save ratings

Posted 2015-07-31 17:59 by Traesk. Edited 2016-03-30 04:03 by Traesk. 2905 views.

Purpose: To see if any of the alternatives is significantly better or worse, and ultimately decide what OS/filesystem to potentially use on a fileserver.
Scope/limitations: This test does not consider factors other than the actual save ratings, such as performance, security, and cost. The method is very limited and might not necessarily reflect the results in a real-world scenario. There might be some minor difference in the results due to rounding and possibly inconsistent variables used. This is the first time I get in touch with most of these systems, so the results are probably not optimized. The results were pretty clear though, so +/- some percent shouldn't matter.
Method: I used 22.3GiB worth of Windows XP installation ISOs, 52 ISOs in total. No file was exactly the same, but some contained much duplicate data, like the Swedish XP Home Edition vs the Swedish N-version of XP Home Edition. I deduplicated these files and noted how much space I saved compared to the 22.3GiB.

Please see the updated results!

Introduction

Duplication is the method of removing duplicate data in files. That way, if you have two similar files, theoretically only the "new" or "different" data takes up space in the second file.
There are two ways to do deduplication; "post-process" and "in-line" (sometimes called by other names). Post-process scans the files after they are copied and then removes duplicate data. In-line compares the files before they are written, so duplicate data are never written at all. In-line need much RAM to keep all necessary information available, but should copy identical files much faster as duplicate data of the second file doesn't have to be written to the disk.

Btrfs

The filesystem Btrfs supports post-process deduplication, but you need a tool that tells it what do dedup. There seems to be two alternatives: bedup and duperemove. Bedup only do whole-file-deduplication (I also verified this by running the tool, with no space savings as a result), rather than chunks, so it's not really what we are looking for.

General info

Duperemove v0.09 was used in this test.

Ubuntu 14.10

uname -a

Linux hostname 3.16.0-30-generic #40-Ubuntu SMP Mon Jan 12 22:06:37 UTC 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

btrfs --version

Btrfs v3.14.1

blockdev --getbsz /dev/sda3

Testing

Used space before running duperemove:

df /dev/sda3 --block-size=M

Filesystem	1M-blocks	Used	Available	Use%	Mounted on
/dev/sda3	82969M		22935M	58008M		29%	/media/traesk/020d9e3e-0a61-4d06-8b78-c5b4dd975bd9

Running with default block size of 128K

duperemove -rdh /media/traesk/020d9e3e-0a61-4d06-8b78-c5b4dd975bd9/

df /dev/sda3 --block-size=M

Filesystem	1M-blocks	Used	Available	Use%	Mounted on
/dev/sda3	82969M		19611M	61325M		25%	/media/traesk/020d9e3e-0a61-4d06-8b78-c5b4dd975bd9

Testing with half the block size, 64K

duperemove -rdh -b 64k /media/traesk/020d9e3e-0a61-4d06-8b78-c5b4dd975bd9/

df /dev/sda3 --block-size=M

Filesystem	1M-blocks	Used	Available	Use%	Mounted on
/dev/sda3	82969M		19468M	61469M		25%	/media/traesk/020d9e3e-0a61-4d06-8b78-c5b4dd975bd9

Finally, I attempted to set the block size to the same block size as Btrfs itself; 4K

duperemove -rdh -b 4k /media/traesk/020d9e3e-0a61-4d06-8b78-c5b4dd975bd9/

...however, it froze my virtual PC after an hour or so, and after increasing the RAM of the VM I let it run a day before I gave up and just shut it down. Considering the tests with 64K and 128K took half an hour or so, I did not care to try this any further.

Saved space with 128K block size: (22835.2-19611)/22835.2= 14.1%
Saved space with 64K block size: (22835.2-19468)/22835.2= 14.7%

I find it interesting that the log says:

Using 128K blocks
Using hash: SHA256 
Using 2 threads for file hashing phase
[…]
Kernel processed data (excludes target files): 4.0G
Comparison of extent info shows a net change in shared extents of: 7.4G

...even though the actual savings are 3-3.5GiB. I'm not sure how to interpret this.

Opendedup

Opendedup is a Java-based file system on top of your regular file system that does in-line deduplication.

General info

sdfs-2.0.10_amd64.deb was used in this test. Underlying filesystem was Btrfs.

Testing

Default settings

mkfs.sdfs --volume-name=tank --volume-capacity=100gb --base-path=/media/traesk/ee291934-34db-448c-98cb-c96447c29259/
mount.sdfs tank /media/tank

sdfscli --volume-info

Volume Capacity : 100 GB
Volume Current Logical Size : 22 GB
Volume Max Percentage Full : 95.0%
Volume Duplicate Data Written : 11 GB
Unique Blocks Stored: 10 GB
Unique Blocks Stored after Compression : 10 GB
Cluster Block Copies : 2
Volume Virtual Dedup Rate (Unique Blocks Stored/Current Size) : -9.96%
Volume Actual Storage Savings (Compressed Unique Blocks Stored/Current Size) : 50.92%
Compression Rate: 0.0%

df -h

Filesystem					Size	Used	Avail	Use%	Mounted on
/dev/sda3					75G	12G	59G	17%	/media/traesk/ee291934-34db-448c-98cb-c96447c292591
sdfs:/etc/sdfs/tank-volume-cfg.xml:6442		101G	11G	90G	11%	/media/tank

"Variable block deduplication"

mkfs.sdfs --volume-name=tank --volume-capacity=100gb --hash-type=VARIABLE_MURMUR3 --base-path=/media/traesk/ee291934-34db-448c-98cb-c96447c29259/
mount.sdfs tank /media/tank

sdfscli --volume-info

Volume Capacity : 100 GB
Volume Current Logical Size : 22 GB
Volume Max Percentage Full : 95.0%
Volume Duplicate Data Written : 12 GB
Unique Blocks Stored: 9 GB
Unique Blocks Stored after Compression : 9 GB
Cluster Block Copies : 2
Volume Virtual Dedup Rate (Unique Blocks Stored/Current Size) : -8.94%
Volume Actual Storage Savings (Compressed Unique Blocks Stored/Current Size) : 56.97%
Compression Rate: 3.31%

df -h

Filesystem				Size	Used	Avail	Use%	Mounted on
/dev/sda3				75G	12G	59G	17%	/media/traesk/28b8182f-185b-41b7-a117-b667e6d78f09
sdfs:/etc/sdfs/tank-volume-cfg.xml:6442	101G	9,7G	91G	10%	/media/tank

Savings with default settings: (22.3-12)/22.3 = 46.2%
Savings with Variable block deduplication: (22.3-12)/22.3 = 46.2%

I should have gotten df as megabyte instead for this one. Also, seems Opendedup use some storage on the underlying filesystem as well, that's probably why my calculations show a lower savings rate than sdfscli does.

Windows

In Windows Server 2012 Microsoft introduced post-process deduplication for NTFS. Note that the new filesystem ReFS is not supported.

General info

Windows Server 2012 R2 with Update 1, otherwise untouched.

Testing

Enable-DedupVolume e:
Set-DedupVolume e: -MinimumFileAgeDays 0
Start-DedupJob e: –Type Optimization
Start-DedupJob e: -Type GarbageCollection
Start-DedupJob e: -Type Scrubbing

Get used space

Get-WmiObject win32_logicaldisk -filter "DeviceID='E:'" | ForEach-Object {($_.size - $_.freespace) / 1GB}

9,1517219543457

Get-DedupVolume | Format-List

Volume                   : E:
VolumeId                 : \\?\Volume{bb855b83-aeed-11e4-80b5-000c29fa07e3}\
Enabled                  : True
UsageType                : Default
DataAccessEnabled        : True
Capacity                 : 50.94 GB
FreeSpace                : 41.78 GB
UsedSpace                : 9.15 GB
UnoptimizedSize          : 22.67 GB
SavedSpace               : 13.52 GB
SavingsRate              : 59 %
MinimumFileAgeDays       : 0
MinimumFileSize          : 32768
NoCompress               : False
ExcludeFolder            :
ExcludeFileType          :
ExcludeFileTypeDefault   : {edb, jrs}
NoCompressionFileType    : {asf, mov, wma, wmv...}
ChunkRedundancyThreshold : 100
Verify                   : False
OptimizeInUseFiles       : False
OptimizePartialFiles     : False

Savings: (22.3-9.15)/22.3 = 59.0%

ZFS

ZFS is another filesystem capable of deduplication, but this one does it in-line and no additional software is required. Originally part of Sun OpenSolaris, it was made closed-source when Oracle took over. This led to the creation of OpenZFS which is now (obviously) developed independently of Oracle's version.

General info

Ubuntu 14.10

uname -a

Linux hostname 3.16.0-30-generic #40-Ubuntu SMP Mon Jan 12 22:06:37 UTC 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

zpool get version tank

NAME  PROPERTY  VALUE    SOURCE
tank  version   -        default

zfs get version tank

NAME  PROPERTY  VALUE    SOURCE
tank  version   5        -

dmesg | grep -E 'SPL:|ZFS'

[ 1383.325360] SPL: Loaded module v0.6.3-14~utopic
[ 1383.612907] ZFS: Loaded module v0.6.3-15~utopic, ZFS pool version 5000, ZFS filesystem version 5
[ 2530.532362] SPL: using hostid 0x007f0101

Oracle Solaris

uname -a

SunOS hostname 5.11 11.2 i86pc i386 i86pc

zpool get version tank

NAME  PROPERTY  VALUE  SOURCE
tank  version   35     default

zfs get version tank

NAME  PROPERTY  VALUE  SOURCE
tank  version   6      -

Testing

Ubuntu: Deduplication on, compression off

zpool create -O dedup=on tank /dev/sda3

zdb -DD tank

DDT-sha256-zap-duplicate: 31239 entries, size 274 on disk, 142 in core
DDT-sha256-zap-unique: 116596 entries, size 282 on disk, 152 in core

DDT histogram (aggregated over all DDTs):

bucket              allocated                       referenced         
______   ______________________________   ______________________________

refcnt   blocks   LSIZE   PSIZE   DSIZE   blocks   LSIZE   PSIZE   DSIZE

------   ------   -----   -----   -----   ------   -----   -----   -----

     1     114K   14.2G   14.2G   14.2G     114K   14.2G   14.2G   14.2G

     2    30.2K   3.78G   3.78G   3.78G    63.8K   7.97G   7.97G   7.97G

     4      306   38.2M   38.2M   38.2M    1.20K    153M    153M    153M

     8        1    128K    128K    128K       12   1.50M   1.50M   1.50M

    16        2    256K    256K    256K       47   5.88M   5.88M   5.88M

 Total     144K   18.0G   18.0G   18.0G     179K   22.3G   22.3G   22.3G

dedup = 1.24, compress = 1.00, copies = 1.00, dedup * compress / copies = 1.24

Ubuntu: Deduplication on, compression on

zpool create -O dedup=on -O compression=on tank /dev/sda3

zdb -DD tank

DDT-sha256-zap-duplicate: 31238 entries, size 279 on disk, 143 in core
DDT-sha256-zap-unique: 116596 entries, size 283 on disk, 151 in core

DDT histogram (aggregated over all DDTs):

bucket              allocated                       referenced         
______   ______________________________   ______________________________

refcnt   blocks   LSIZE   PSIZE   DSIZE   blocks   LSIZE   PSIZE   DSIZE

------   ------   -----   -----   -----   ------   -----   -----   -----

     1     114K   14.2G   13.8G   13.8G     114K   14.2G   13.8G   13.8G

     2    30.2K   3.78G   3.63G   3.63G    63.8K   7.97G   7.67G   7.67G

     4      306   38.2M   36.3M   36.3M    1.20K    153M    145M    145M

     8        1    128K   4.50K   4.50K       12   1.50M     54K     54K

    16        1    128K   4.50K   4.50K       24      3M    108K    108K

 Total     144K   18.0G   17.5G   17.5G     179K   22.3G   21.6G   21.6G

dedup = 1.24, compress = 1.03, copies = 1.00, dedup * compress / copies = 1.28

Solaris: Deduplication on, compression on

zpool create -O compression=on -O dedup=on tank c2t1d0

df -k tank

Filesystem           1024-blocks        Used   Available Capacity  Mounted on
tank                    30859235    22681047     8134226    74%    /tank

Note that ZFS reports a larger total disk-size rather than less used space.

zdb -DD tank

DDT-sha256-zap-duplicate: 31238 entries, size 278 on disk, 143 in core
DDT-sha256-zap-unique: 116596 entries, size 283 on disk, 148 in core

DDT histogram (aggregated over all DDTs):

bucket              allocated                       referenced         
______   ______________________________   ______________________________

refcnt   blocks   LSIZE   PSIZE   DSIZE   blocks   LSIZE   PSIZE   DSIZE

------   ------   -----   -----   -----   ------   -----   -----   -----

     1     114K   14.2G   13.8G   13.8G     114K   14.2G   13.8G   13.8G

     2    30.2K   3.78G   3.63G   3.63G    63.8K   7.97G   7.67G   7.67G

     4      306   38.2M   36.3M   36.3M    1.20K    153M    145M    145M

     8        1    128K   4.50K   4.50K       12   1.50M     54K     54K

    16        1    128K   4.50K   4.50K       24      3M    108K    108K

 Total     144K   18.0G   17.5G   17.5G     179K   22.3G   21.6G   21.6G

dedup = 1.24, compress = 1.03, copies = 1.00, dedup * compress / copies = 1.28

zpool list tank

NAME   SIZE  ALLOC   FREE  CAP  DEDUP  HEALTH  ALTROOT
tank  25.8G  17.5G  8.22G  68%  1.23x  ONLINE  -

Ubuntu: Deduplication on, Compression on with gzip-9

zpool create -O dedup=on -O compression=gzip-9 tank /dev/sda3

zdb -DD tank

DDT-sha256-zap-duplicate: 31238 entries, size 279 on disk, 142 in core
DDT-sha256-zap-unique: 116596 entries, size 285 on disk, 151 in core

DDT histogram (aggregated over all DDTs):

bucket              allocated                       referenced         
______   ______________________________   ______________________________

refcnt   blocks   LSIZE   PSIZE   DSIZE   blocks   LSIZE   PSIZE   DSIZE

------   ------   -----   -----   -----   ------   -----   -----   -----

     1     114K   14.2G   13.5G   13.5G     114K   14.2G   13.5G   13.5G

     2    30.2K   3.78G   3.55G   3.55G    63.8K   7.97G   7.51G   7.51G

     4      306   38.2M   35.3M   35.3M    1.20K    153M    141M    141M

     8        1    128K     512     512       12   1.50M      6K      6K

    16        1    128K     512     512       24      3M     12K     12K

 Total     144K   18.0G   17.1G   17.1G     179K   22.3G   21.2G   21.2G

dedup = 1.24, compress = 1.05, copies = 1.00, dedup * compress / copies = 1.30

Ubuntu: Savings with Deduplication on, compression off : (22.3-18)/22.3 = 19.3%
Ubuntu: Savings with Deduplication on, compression on : (22.3-17.5)/22.3 = 21.5%
Solaris: Savings with Deduplication on, compression on: (22.3-17.5)/22.3 = 21.5%
Ubuntu: Savings with Deduplication on, compression on with gzip-9: (22.3-17.1)/22.3 = 23.3%

OpenZFS on Ubuntu and Oracle ZFS on Solaris seem to get more or less the exact same results.

Summary and conclusion

Please see the updated results!

The results clearly show that the efficiency when it comes to deduplication does not give me any reason to leave my comfort-zone and abandon Windows for Linux or UNIX.