# Logsdb will save about 65% disk spaces but i have received these results (Am I doing something wrong here) **URL:** \ **Category:** Elasticsearch\ **Created:** [April 7, 2025, 7:40pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/logsdb-will-save-about-65-disk-spaces-but-i-have-received-these-results-am-i-doing-something-wrong-here/376883 "2025-04-07T19:40:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![kishorkumar](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/kishorkumar/32/132930_2.png) [@kishorkumar](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/kishorkumar)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2025, 7:40pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/logsdb-will-save-about-65-disk-spaces-but-i-have-received-these-results-am-i-doing-something-wrong-here/376883/1 "2025-04-07T19:40:11Z")
I have tried uploading the simple logs data of windows from **direct upload** with about 2 **79 KB** file size that after ingestion into elastic was about **277.58kb**. named **windows\_2k\_simple** that **277.58kb**. same with logsdb setting through index.mode:"logsdb" windows\_2k\_logs\_db : 180.97kb ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/original/3X/1/a/1a41a78f00097931945e407acf9afb28b45075ec.png) so over all it saves about 34% of disk size from normal not 65% but it's also good achievement. If anyone have tried it and they got 50%-65% then please share your experience as well. ---
**Author:** ![leandrojmp](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/leandrojmp/32/107231_2.png) [@leandrojmp](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/leandrojmp)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2025, 8:32pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/logsdb-will-save-about-65-disk-spaces-but-i-have-received-these-results-am-i-doing-something-wrong-here/376883/2 "2025-04-07T20:32:44Z")
This is not a valid comparison, the dataset is too small. You will start seeing a difference when you have 10s and 100s of GB. ---
**Author:** ![stephenb](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/stephenb/32/40856_2.png) [@stephenb](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/stephenb)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2025, 9:58pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/logsdb-will-save-about-65-disk-spaces-but-i-have-received-these-results-am-i-doing-something-wrong-here/376883/3 "2025-04-07T21:58:45Z")
Hi @kishorkumar @leandrojmp is exactly correct... The Hierarchy of an index is Index -\> Shards -\> Segments When you first start writing data to elasticsearch it automatically creates a number of segments to "get ready" to ingest data... at that point there is more overhead than actually data. You will see the logsdb savings when you scale up ... Event at 1GB or more but definitely at 10Gb.... etc > [@kishorkumar](#): > > so over all it saves about 34% of disk size from normal not 65% but it's also good achievement. > > If anyone have tried it and they got 50%-65% then please share your experience as well. To be clear there is not a "guaranteed" saving %.... anywhere from 30-70% depending on the type / content of logs... I see mostly 40-60% savings with the data sets I have tested ---
**Author:** ![dadoonet](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/dadoonet/32/137187_2.png) [@dadoonet](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/dadoonet)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2025, 11:43pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/logsdb-will-save-about-65-disk-spaces-but-i-have-received-these-results-am-i-doing-something-wrong-here/376883/4 "2025-04-07T23:43:25Z")
Also adding that you need also a trial or enterprise license to get the maximum compression ratio. Otherwise you will see some benefits between without logsdb and with it, but not like 40-60% because [synthetic source](https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/current/mapping-source-field.html#synthetic-source) is only available with a trial/enterprise license.