Compress documentation uploaded to S3

[pietroalbini]

At the moment we don't compress the documentation uploaded to S3, wasting a lot of space. While money for S3 isn't an issue at the moment, avoiding compression could hurt docs.rs's sustainability in the future.

I ran some very rough benchmarks on reqwest 0.9.3, compressing each .html file separately:

Bad benchmark

Algorithm	Size	Compression time	Decompression time	Options
Plaintext	33.9 MB	-	-	-
Gzip	12.0 MB	3.2s	3.4s	-9 (best)
Gzip	12.8 MB	2.5s	3.4s	-1 (fast)
Zstd	11.7 MB	7.8s	2.4s	-19 (best)
Zstd	12.5 MB	2.5s	2.4s	-1 (fast)
Brotli	11.5 MB	5.5s	2.3s	-9 (best)
Brotli	13.0 MB	2.3s	2.3s	-0 (fast)

Looking at the numbers, on average if we compress the uploaded docs we're going to save 63% of storage space, which is great from a sustainability point of view. I think we should compress all the uploaded docs going forward, and try to compress (part of) the initial import as well.

For the algoritm choice, I'd say we can go with gzip: there isn't much difference between the resulting sizes and the compression time delta between gzip's fast and best modes is the smallest. We can compress the initial import with -1 to speed it up, and all the new crates with -9.

cc @Mark-Simulacrum @QuietMisdreavus

Benchmark method

Installed compression tools on Ubuntu 18.04 LTS:

$ sudo apt install gzip brotli zstd

Downloaded locally the reqwest documentation:

$ aws s3 cp --recursive s3://rust-docs-rs/rustdoc/reqwest/0.9.3/ .

Compressed every .html file with find:

$ time find <dir> -name "*.html" -exec <command> {} \;

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Could you populate decompression times as well? In some sense those are considerably more important for us to decide whether this is viable. Compression times for all of those are not great though :/

[GuillaumeGomez]

@Mark-Simulacrum Why would we need decompression? You can send compressed files as is (I think only gzip compression is supported on web-browser though?).

[Mark-Simulacrum]

That's true, in general, certainly. I guess presumably ~all clients are Accept-Encoding: gzip; or w/e the header value is?

I do think this shouldn't be that hard to add -- presumably we'd add a "compressed" column to the files table and if it's set access files in S3 at file.gzip or something along those lines.

[pietroalbini]

Added decompression time: gzip is slower than zstd and brotli, and those two are roughly the same. Of course production performance for decompression are going to be way better, as you don't have to write to my hard disk (:sweat_smile:), everything is in memory, the binary is not restarted every time and we will decompress way less files.

Considering the decompression time brotli is probably the best choice?

Why would we need decompression? You can send compressed files as is (I think only gzip compression is supported on web-browser though?).

No, because docs.rs needs to tweak those HTML files (for example to add the top bar).

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Given those decompression times, this seems problematic. Even if they were an order of magnitude lower, that's still ~250ms/file we read - and slowing down all requests to docs.rs by that much seems poor. In very unscientific benchmarking (web developer tools), it looks like we respond in about ~60ms on js/css content today and ~150ms on HTML content -- this would significantly increase that.

[pietroalbini]

Let me create a proper benchmark.

[pietroalbini]

Given those decompression times, this seems problematic. Even if they were an order of magnitude lower, that's still ~250ms/file we read

By the way, the numbers are for compressing and decompressing 2040 files, not a single file.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Ah, yeah, that makes sense. I did think the numbers were awfully large :)

We probably want single-file timing information as that's whats important for the primary use case of serving them.

[pietroalbini]

Ok, scratch that, wrote a proper benchmark, and the results are way more accurate:

Algorithm	Level	Size	Comp.	Comp. (one)	Dec.	Dec. (one)
plain	-	25.2 MB	-	-	-	-
gzip	9	3.8 MB	426.9ms	194.4µs	70.1ms	31.9µs
gzip	5	3.9 MB	259.7ms	118.3µs	71.0ms	32.3µs
gzip	1	5.0 MB	119.0ms	54.2µs	82.3ms	37.5µs
zstd	9	3.6 MB	348.2ms	158.6µs	28.8ms	13.1µs
zstd	5	3.8 MB	151.9ms	69.2µs	24.4ms	11.1µs
zstd	1	4.2 MB	68.3ms	31.1µs	24.9ms	11.3µs
brotli	9	3.2 MB	3.6s	1.7ms	49.7ms	22.6µs
brotli	5	3.3 MB	389.4ms	177.3µs	49.8ms	22.7µs
brotli	1	4.4 MB	97.2ms	44.2µs	51.3ms	23.4µs

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Okay, those numbers look great! We can definitely afford microseconds of decompression time.

I'll investigate doing this legwork, though I'll keep the upload going in the meantime. I think re-compressing existing files and such can happen in parallel and over time if needed, not sure.

[pietroalbini]

Did some more brotli benchmarks:

Algorithm	Level	Size	Comp.	Comp. (one)	Dec.	Dec. (one)
plain	-	25.2 MB	-	-	-	-
brotli	6	3.3 MB	409.2ms	186.4µs	49.8ms	22.7µs
brotli	5	3.3 MB	383.8ms	174.8µs	49.9ms	22.7µs
brotli	4	3.6 MB	264.0ms	120.2µs	50.1ms	22.8µs
brotli	3	3.9 MB	178.0ms	81.0µs	47.6ms	21.7µs
brotli	2	4.1 MB	145.6ms	66.3µs	52.3ms	23.8µs
brotli	1	4.4 MB	97.1ms	44.2µs	51.1ms	23.3µs

Based on that, I think the two options we should consider are zstd 9 and brotli 5:

• Both take roughly the same time to compress, zstd 9 is slightly faster though
• zstd 9 takes half the time to decompress than brotli 5
• brotli 5 uses 10% less storage

I'm sort of preferring brotli 5 as the saved storage is nice, but I don't feel too strongly about that.

[najamelan]

putting the cached content in an iframe avoids decompression and post processing. It would require an extra http request, but then since it's cached, it's possible to give it a unique name and cache control immutable so browsers never try to reload it if it's in cache. That might well make up for the extra requests.