From: Karl Johan Alm <karljohan-alm@garage•co.jp>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Block Filter Digest profiling
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 11:11:48 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALJw2w6zrdbn-xvDk9CpayqoDedbi5pFuwDyipeNO4hd9WjOog@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
Hello,
I have spent a fair bit of time trying to nail how exactly block
filter digests[1] should be done to optimize bandwidth, space,
resource usage.
The report can be found here: http://bc-2.jp/bfd-profile.pdf
This graph shows bandwidth use of 200 wallets simulated over 5000
blocks: http://bc-2.jp/bandwidth_bfd.png (black line is "sync once per
block" wallet, yellow is "sync once per 144 blocks" wallet, red is
average across all wallets).
An interesting insight made during the experiments: when allowing
digests to contain multiple blocks, the false positive rate of high
block count digests can be higher than normal, because the probability
of a false positive hit for a given entry in multiple digests,
assuming their sizes differ, is almost completely independent.
The results look rather promising to me, but I would like to hear
comments, in particular on the approach taken, if I made any faulty
assumptions, bad math mistakes, etc.
I am also curious what people consider to be acceptable costs in terms
of bandwidth use and memory (I couldn't find any stats on bandwidth
use of bloom filters). In the profiling, I restricted the field sizes
to 2^27 = 128 MB. I assumed this was appropriate as these fields are
very short lived, and in worst case, a client *could* do the scan and
decode simultaneously, without allocating up the space for the field
at all. For high block count digests (e.g. 1024 blocks), this is
sometimes overfilled. I wonder if 2^28 (256 MB) fields would be at all
acceptable or if an over-filled (high false positive rate) field is
better.
For that matter, I am not entirely sure 1024-block digests are
necessary, but they do come with an average 15 kb/block which is
pretty good.
I also wonder if the serialization approach taken is overkill or not.
It does save some space instead of simply storing "BBBAAAAA" but adds
some complexity that may not be warranted.
[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-May/012636.html
reply other threads:[~2017-06-01 2:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CALJw2w6zrdbn-xvDk9CpayqoDedbi5pFuwDyipeNO4hd9WjOog@mail.gmail.com \
--to=karljohan-alm@garage$(echo .)co.jp \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox