Re: [bitcoin-dev] Test Results for : Datasstream Compression of Blocks and Tx's

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4754 bytes --]

Thanks for providing an in-depth, data driven analysis.

It is surprising that zlib provides better compression at the high end.  I
wonder if that is due to our specific data patterns - many zeroes - which
probably puts us into the zlib dictionary fast path.



On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Peter Tschipper via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Here are some final results of testing with the reference implementation
> for compressing blocks and transactions. This implementation also
> concatenates blocks and transactions when possible so you'll see data sizes
> in the 1-2MB ranges.
>
> Results below show the time it takes to sync the first part of the
> blockchain, comparing Zlib to the LZOx library.  (LZOf was also tried but
> wasn't found to be as good as LZOx).  The following shows tests run with
> and without latency.  With latency on the network, all compression
> libraries performed much better than without compression.
>
> I don't think it's entirely obvious which is better, Zlib or LZO.
> Although I prefer the higher compression of Zlib, overall I would have to
> give the edge to LZO.  With LZO we have the fastest most scalable option
> when at the lowest compression setting which will be a boost in performance
> for users that want peformance over compression, and then at the high end
> LZO provides decent compression which approaches Zlib, (although at a
> higher cost) but good for those that want to save more bandwidth.
>
> Uncompressed 60ms Zlib-1 (60ms) Zlib-6 (60ms) LZOx-1 (60ms) LZOx-999
> (60ms) 219 299 296 294 291 432 568 565 558 548 652 835 836 819 811 866
> 1106 1107 1081 1071 1082 1372 1381 1341 1333 1309 1644 1654 1605 1600 1535
> 1917 1936 1873 1875 1762 2191 2210 2141 2141 1992 2463 2486 2411 2411 2257
> 2748 2780 2694 2697 2627 3034 3076 2970 2983 3226 3416 3397 3266 3302 4010
> 3983 3773 3625 3703 4914 4503 4292 4127 4287 5806 4928 4719 4529 4821 6674
> 5249 5164 4840 5314 7563 5603 5669 5289 6002 8477 6054 6268 5858 6638 9843
> 7085 7278 6868 7679 11338 8215 8433 8044 8795
>
> These results from testing on a highspeed wireless LAN (very small latency)
>
> Results in seconds
>
>
>
>
> Num blocks sync'd Uncompressed Zlib-1 Zlib-6 LZOx-1 LZOx-999 10000 255 232
> 233 231 257 20000 464 414 420 407 453 30000 677 594 611 585 650 40000 887
> 782 795 760 849 50000 1099 961 977 933 1048 60000 1310 1145 1167 1110 1259
> 70000 1512 1330 1362 1291 1470 80000 1714 1519 1552 1469 1679 90000 1917
> 1707 1747 1650 1882 100000 2122 1905 1950 1843 2111 110000 2333 2107 2151
> 2038 2329 120000 2560 2333 2376 2256 2580 130000 2835 2656 2679 2558 2921
> 140000 3274 3259 3161 3051 3466 150000 3662 3793 3547 3440 3919 160000
> 4040 4172 3937 3767 4416 170000 4425 4625 4379 4215 4958 180000 4860 5149
> 4895 4781 5560 190000 5855 6160 5898 5805 6557 200000 7004 7234 7051 6983
> 7770
>
> The following show the compression ratio acheived for various sizes of
> data.  Zlib is the clear
> winner for compressibility, with LZOx-999 coming close but at a cost.
>
> range Zlib-1 cmp%
> Zlib-6 cmp% LZOx-1 cmp% LZOx-999 cmp% 0-250b 12.44 12.86 10.79 14.34
> 250-500b  19.33 12.97 10.34 11.11 600-700 16.72 n/a 12.91 17.25 700-800
> 6.37 7.65 4.83 8.07 900-1KB 6.54 6.95 5.64 7.9 1KB-10KB 25.08 25.65 21.21
> 22.65 10KB-100KB 19.77 21.57 14.37 19.02 100KB-200KB 21.49 23.56 15.37
> 21.55 200KB-300KB 23.66 24.18 16.91 22.76 300KB-400KB 23.4 23.7 16.5 21.38
> 400KB-500KB 24.6 24.85 17.56 22.43 500KB-600KB 25.51 26.55 18.51 23.4
> 600KB-700KB 27.25 28.41 19.91 25.46 700KB-800KB 27.58 29.18 20.26 27.17
> 800KB-900KB 27 29.11 20 27.4 900KB-1MB 28.19 29.38 21.15 26.43 1MB -2MB
> 27.41 29.46 21.33 27.73
> The following shows the time in seconds to compress data of various
> sizes.  LZO1x is the
> fastest and as file sizes increase, LZO1x time hardly increases at all.
> It's interesing
> to note as compression ratios increase LZOx-999 performs much worse than
> Zlib.  So LZO is faster
> on the low end and slower (5 to 6 times slower) on the high end.
>
> range Zlib-1 Zlib-6 LZOx-1 LZOx-999 cmp% 0-250b    0.001 0 0 0 250-500b
> 0 0 0 0.001 500-1KB     0 0 0 0.001 1KB-10KB    0.001 0.001 0 0.002
> 10KB-100KB   0.004 0.006 0.001 0.017 100KB-200KB  0.012 0.017 0.002 0.054
> 200KB-300KB  0.018 0.024 0.003 0.087 300KB-400KB  0.022 0.03 0.003 0.121
> 400KB-500KB  0.027 0.037 0.004 0.151 500KB-600KB  0.031 0.044 0.004 0.184
> 600KB-700KB  0.035 0.051 0.006 0.211 700KB-800KB  0.039 0.057 0.006 0.243
> 800KB-900KB  0.045 0.064 0.006 0.27 900KB-1MB   0.049 0.072 0.006 0.307
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 24800 bytes --]