jamtis: implement dense/sparse view privacy changes#15
Closed
jeffro256 wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
Conversation
jeffro256
force-pushed
the
jamtis_fix_fr_privacy
branch
2 times, most recently
from
49e2409 to
7d888fc
Compare
jeffro256
changed the title
jeffro256
changed the title
UkoeHB
requested changes
Sep 6, 2023
Owner
UkoeHB
left a comment
UkoeHB
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just skimmed it for now. I recommend running comparative perf tests for scanning before/after this PR and adding them to the PR comments.
jeffro256
force-pushed
the
jamtis_fix_fr_privacy
branch
from
7d888fc to
351d81c
Compare
Author
|
Here's the results of Ran on an AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-core CPU. So processing basic records from a remote scanner is ~128x slower (about what was predicted from Tevador's cycle estimates). |
Author
|
One performance difference that works in the new changes favor, though, is that basic records are 9% smaller because the nominal address index is not transmitted. |
Results of `test_remote_scanner_client_scan_sp` performance test: ``` seraphis_lib (original) run #1 test_remote_scanner_client_scan_sp (23 calls) - OK: 13434 µs/call test_remote_scanner_client_scan_sp (23 calls) - OK: 13217 µs/call test_remote_scanner_client_scan_sp (23 calls) - OK: 14304 µs/call seraphis_lib (original) run #2 test_remote_scanner_client_scan_sp (23 calls) - OK: 13086 µs/call test_remote_scanner_client_scan_sp (23 calls) - OK: 13130 µs/call test_remote_scanner_client_scan_sp (23 calls) - OK: 14217 µs/call jamtis_fix_fr_privacy (new PR) run #1 test_remote_scanner_client_scan_sp (23 calls) - OK: 1738 ms/call test_remote_scanner_client_scan_sp (23 calls) - OK: 1738 ms/call test_remote_scanner_client_scan_sp (23 calls) - OK: 1739 ms/call jamtis_fix_fr_privacy (new PR) run #2 test_remote_scanner_client_scan_sp (23 calls) - OK: 1731 ms/call test_remote_scanner_client_scan_sp (23 calls) - OK: 1750 ms/call test_remote_scanner_client_scan_sp (23 calls) - OK: 1734 ms/call ``` Ran on an AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-core CPU. Processing basic records from a remote scanner is about 128x slower.
jeffro256
force-pushed
the
jamtis_fix_fr_privacy
branch
from
351d81c to
3aa169b
Compare
Owner
|
If my math is right, the updated scanning for a scanner client is 1s per 10mill on-chain enotes (40k are scanned locally). 40k enotes transmitted for local scanning is at least 5-10MB so the overall cost is comparable with modern download speeds. |
Author
|
Closing in favor of #26 |
Open
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description of changes can be found here: https://gist.github.com/tevador/50160d160d24cfc6c52ae02eb3d17024?permalink_comment_id=4665372#gistcomment-4665372