[burch45]

This post’s conclusions are odd. It has a bunch of extensive benchmarks showing that zstd is by far the worst performing across every metric except a slight increase in compression ratio and then says the conclusion is zstd is the best choice. Unless I’m missing something in the data.

[Dylan16807]

In the first benchmark it gets a ratio of 4 instead of 2.7, fitting 36-40% more data with 75% more CPU. It looks great.

The next two show it fitting 20% more data with 2-3x the CPU, which is a tougher tradeoff but still useful in a lot of situations.

The rest of the post analyzes the CPU cost in more detail, so yeah it's worse in every subcategory of that. But the increase in compression ratio is quite valuable. The conclusion says it "provides the highest compression ratio while still maintaining acceptable speeds" and that's correct. If you care about compression ratio, strongly consider zstd.

[buildbot]

I have had similar experience, with ZFS zstd dropped IOPs and throughput by 2-4x compared to lz4! On a 64 core Milan server chip…

[colechristensen]

ZFS lz4 in my experience is faster in every metric than no compression.

[1oooqooq]

the context is missing.

but for vps, where the cpu usage is extremely low and ram is expensive, it might make sense to sacrifice a little performance for more db cache maybe. can't say without more context