Re: [bitcoin-dev] request BIP number for: "Support for Datastream Compression"

From: Marco Pontello <marcopon@gmail•com>
To: Peter Tschipper <peter.tschipper@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] request BIP number for: "Support for Datastream Compression"
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 19:49:49 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAE0pACK1-xQC4MsdbM46_Z0TQvZTrZKw4e8xFt3X=PmW7pmGJQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56438A55.2010604@gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7383 bytes --]

A random thought: aren't most communication over a data link already
compressed, at some point?
When I used a modem, we had the V.42bis protocol. Now, nearly all ADSL
connections using PPPoE, surely are. And so on.
I'm not sure another level of generic, data agnostic kind of compression
will really give us some real-life practical advantage over that.

Something that could take advantage of of special knowledge of the specific
data, instead, would be an entirely different matter.

Just my 2c.

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Peter Tschipper via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Here are the latest results on compression ratios for the first 295,000
> blocks, compressionlevel=6.  I think there are more than enough datapoints
> for statistical significance.
>
> Results are very much similar to the previous test.   I'll work on getting
> a comparison between how much time savings/loss in time there is when
> syncing the blockchains: compressed vs uncompressed.  Still, I think it's
> clear that serving up compressed blocks, at least historical blocks, will
> be of benefit for those that have bandwidth caps on their internet
> connections.
>
> The proposal, so far is fairly simple:
> 1) compress blocks with some compression library: currently zlib but I can
> investigate other possiblities
> 2) As a fall back we need to advertise compression as a service.  That way
> we can turn off compression AND decompression completely if needed.
> 3) Do the compression at the datastream level in the code.  CDataStream is
> the obvious place.
>
>
> Test Results:
>
> 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    12.40             91280
> 250-500b    438            404    0.001    0.000    7.85             13217
> 500-1KB     761            701    0.001    0.000    7.86
> 11434
> 1KB-10KB    4149    3547    0.001    0.000      14.51             52180
> 10KB-100KB  41934    32604    0.005    0.001    22.25         82890
> 100KB-200KB 146303    108080    0.016    0.001    26.13    29886
> 200KB-300KB 243299    179281    0.025    0.002    26.31    25066
> 300KB-400KB 344636    266177    0.036    0.003    22.77    4956
> 400KB-500KB 463201    356862    0.046    0.004    22.96    3167
> 500KB-600KB 545123    429854    0.056    0.005    21.15    366
> 600KB-700KB 647736    510931    0.065    0.006    21.12    254
> 700KB-800KB 746540    587287    0.073    0.008    21.33    294
> 800KB-900KB 868121    682650    0.087    0.008    21.36    199
> 900KB-1MB   945747    726307    0.091    0.010    23.20    304
>
> On 10/11/2015 8:46 AM, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> Comments:
>
> 1) cblock seems a reasonable way to extend the protocol.  Further wrapping
> should probably be done at the stream level.
>
> 2) zlib has crappy security track record.
>
> 3) A fallback path to non-compressed is required, should compression fail
> or crash.
>
> 4) Most blocks and transactions have runs of zeroes and/or highly common
> bit-patterns, which contributes to useful compression even at smaller
> sizes.  Peter Ts's most recent numbers bear this out.  zlib has a
> dictionary (32K?) which works well with repeated patterns such as those you
> see with concatenated runs of transactions.
>
> 5) LZO should provide much better compression, at a cost of CPU
> performance and using a less-reviewed, less-field-tested library.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev <
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Peter Tschipper <
>> <peter.tschipper@gmail.com>peter.tschipper@gmail•com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> If the main point is for historical data, then sticking to just blocks is
>> the best plan.
>>
>> Since small blocks don't compress well, you could define a "cblocks"
>> message that handles multiple blocks (just concatenate the block messages
>> as payload before compression).
>>
>> The sending peer could combine blocks so that each cblock is compressing
>> at least 10kB of block data (or whatever is optimal).  It is probably worth
>> specifying a maximum size for network buffer reasons (either 1MB or 1 block
>> maximum).
>>
>> Similarly, transactions could be combined together and compressed
>> "ctxs".  The inv messages could be modified so that you can request groups
>> of 10-20 transactions.  That would depend on how much of an improvement
>> compressed transactions would represent.
>>
>> More generally, you could define a message which is a compressed message
>> holder.  That is probably to complex to be worth the effort though.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Johnathan Corgan via bitcoin-dev <
>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 5:58 PM, gladoscc via bitcoin-dev <
>>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
>>>> bitcoin-dev@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>http://corganlabs.com
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing listbitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.orghttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing listbitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.orghttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

-- 
Try the Online TrID File Identifier
http://mark0.net/onlinetrid.aspx

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 17296 bytes --]