Peter Tschipper [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2015-11-09 to 2015-12-02
💬 Posted a total of 16 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: bitcoin-dev, BIP Draft
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-07 17:44:22

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-11-10
📝 Original message:On 10/11/2015 8:11 AM, Peter Tschipper wrote:
> On 10/11/2015 1:44 AM, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> The network protocol is not quite consensus critical, but it is
>> important.
>>
>> Two implementations of the decompressor might not be bug for bug
>> compatible. This (potentially) means that a block could be designed
>> that won't decode properly for some version of the client but would
>> work for another. This would fork the network.
>>
>> A "raw" network library is unlikely to have the same problem.
>>
>> Rather than just compress the stream, you could compress only block
>> messages only. A new "cblock" message could be created that is a
>> compressed block. This shouldn't reduce efficiency by much.
>>
> I chose the more generic datastream compression so we could in the
> future apply to possibly to transactions but currently all that is
> planned, is to compress blocks, and that was really my only original
> intent until I saw that there might be some bandwidth savings for
> transactions as well.
>
> The compression however could be applied to any datastream but is not
> *forced* . Basically it would just be a method call in CDatastream so
> we could do ss.compress and ss.decompress and apply that to blocks and
> possibly transactions if worthwhile and only IF compression is turned
> on. But there is no intend to apply this to every type of message
> since most would be too small to benefit from compression.
>
> Here are some results of using the code in the PR to
> compress/decompress blocks using zlib compression level = 6. This
> data was taken from the first 275K blocks in the mainnet blockchain.
> Clearly once we get past 10KB we get pretty decent compression but
> even below that there is some benefit. I'm still collecting data and
> will get the same for the whole blockchain.
>
> range = block size range
> ubytes = average size of uncompressed blocks
> cbytes = average size of compressed blocks
> ctime = average time to compress
> dtime = average time to decompress
> cmp_ratio% = compression ratio
> datapoints = number of datapoints taken
>
> range ubytes cbytes ctime dtime cmp_ratio% datapoints
> 0-250b 215 189 0.001 0.000 12.41 79498
> 250-500b 440 405 0.001 0.000 7.82 11903
> 500-1KB 762 702 0.001 0.000 7.83 10448
> 1KB-10KB 4166 3561 0.001 0.000 14.51 50572
> 10KB-100KB 40820 31597 0.005 0.001 22.59 75555
> 100KB-200KB 146238 106320 0.015 0.001 27.30 25024
> 200KB-300KB 242913 175482 0.025 0.002 27.76 20450
> 300KB-400KB 343430 251760 0.034 0.003 26.69 2069
> 400KB-500KB 457448 343495 0.045 0.004 24.91 1889
> 500KB-600KB 540736 424255 0.056 0.007 21.54 90
> 600KB-700KB 647851 506888 0.063 0.007 21.76 59
> 700KB-800KB 749513 586551 0.073 0.007 21.74 48
> 800KB-900KB 859439 652166 0.086 0.008 24.12 39
> 900KB-1MB 952333 725191 0.089 0.009 23.85 78
>
>> If a client fails to decode a cblock, then it can ask for the block
>> to be re-sent as a standard "block" message.
> interesting idea.
>>
>> This means that it is a pure performance improvement. If problems
>> occur, then the client can just switch back to uncompressed mode for
>> that block.
>>
>> You should look into the block relay system. This gives a larger
>> improvement than simply compressing the stream. The main benefit is
>> latency but it means that actual blocks don't have to be sent, so
>> gives a potential 50% compression ratio. Normally, a node receives
>> all the transactions and then those transactions are included later
>> in the block.
>>
> There are better ways of sending new blocks, that's certainly true but
> for sending historical blocks and seding transactions I don't think
> so. This PR is really designed to save bandwidth and not intended to
> be a huge performance improvement in terms of time spent sending.
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Johnathan Corgan via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 5:58 PM, gladoscc via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think 25% bandwidth savings is certainly considerable,
>> especially for people running full nodes in countries like
>> Australia where internet bandwidth is lower and there are
>> data caps.
>>
>>
>> This reinforces the idea that such trade-off decisions should be
>> be local and negotiated between peers, not a required feature of
>> the network P2P.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Johnathan Corgan
>> Corgan Labs - SDR Training and Development Services
>> http://corganlabs.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151110/a9fefde7/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 17:44:21

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-11-09
📝 Original message:This is my first time through this process so please bear with me.
I opened a PR #6973 this morning for Zlib Block Compression for block
relay and at the request of @sipa this should have a BIP associated
with it. The idea is simple, to compress the datastream before
sending, initially for blocks only but it could theoretically be done
for transactions as well. Initial results show an average of 20% block
compression and taking 90 milliseconds for a full block (on a very slow
laptop) to compress. The savings will be mostly in terms of less
bandwidth used, but I would expect there to be a small performance gain
during the transmission of the blocks particularly where network latency
is higher.
I think the BIP title, if accepted should be the more generic, "Support
for Datastream Compression" rather than the PR title of "Zlib
Compression for block relay" since it could also be used for
transactions as well at a later time.
Thanks for your time...