Published on: 2015-11-30T16:53:39+00:00
The final analysis of testing with the reference implementation for compressing blocks and transactions reveals interesting findings. The implementation involves concatenating blocks and transactions whenever possible, resulting in data sizes ranging from 1-2MB. The analysis focuses on comparing the performance of Zlib and the LZOx library in terms of syncing the first part of the blockchain.With latency present on the network, all compression libraries show significant improvements compared to uncompressed data. While Zlib offers higher compression capabilities, LZO proves to be faster and more scalable. This is particularly beneficial for users prioritizing performance over compression. At the high end, LZO provides decent compression that approaches Zlib's level, but at a higher cost in terms of processing time. This makes it a suitable choice for those seeking to save bandwidth.When considering compression ratios, Zlib emerges as the clear winner in terms of compressibility. LZOx-999 comes close to Zlib but comes with some trade-offs. As compression ratios increase, LZOx-999 performs significantly worse than Zlib. On the other hand, LZO1x stands out as the fastest option. Interestingly, as file sizes increase, the time taken by LZO1x remains relatively stable, hardly increasing at all.Overall, LZO demonstrates superior speed on the lower end of the spectrum but lags behind (5 to 6 times slower) on the higher end. These findings provide valuable insights into the performance and capabilities of Zlib and the LZOx library when it comes to compressing blocks and transactions. Users can now make informed decisions based on their specific requirements, whether they prioritize compression or seek optimal performance.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T16:56:32.042162+00:00