8000 Benchmarks at depth 32 by dtebbs · Pull Request #154 · clearmatics/zeth · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to content

Benchmarks at depth 32 #154

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 18 commits into from
Feb 26, 2020
Merged

Benchmarks at depth 32 #154

merged 18 commits into from
Feb 26, 2020

Conversation

dtebbs
Copy link
Contributor
@dtebbs dtebbs commented Jan 31, 2020

Depends on #145.

  • Perform benchmarks on larger merkle tree depths
  • Address code issues discovered during this process

@dtebbs dtebbs changed the title Client sca issues benchmark (depends on #145) WIP: Client sca issues benchmark (depends on #145) Jan 31, 2020
@dtebbs
Copy link
Contributor Author
dtebbs commented Jan 31, 2020
  • Addressed merkle tree efficiency
  • Fix int overflow in circuit creation
  • ...
  • Measured costs for several depths
  • Switched to depth 32 by default
On 2.5 GHz Intel Core i7  (2 hw cores, 4 virtual cores)

     |-------+------------+--------------+---------+--------------+------------|
     | DEPTH | Deploy Gas | Proof Time 1 |   Gas 1 | Proof Time 2 | Gas Cost 1 |
     |-------+------------+--------------+---------+--------------+------------|
     |     8 |    3074532 |        14.14 |  883923 |        13.86 |     778481 |
     |    16 |    3391362 |        13.95 | 1208195 |        14.43 |     983137 |
     |    32 |    4024620 |        14.77 | 1857793 |        14.78 |    1392351 |

@dtebbs dtebbs force-pushed the client-sca-issues-benchmark branch 4 times, most recently from 81b3113 to 1b05e93 Compare February 3, 2020 12:15
@dtebbs
Copy link
Contributor Author
dtebbs commented Feb 3, 2020

Hit another code-related issue when using other depth sizes. Should be fixed now, so removing the WIP.

@dtebbs dtebbs changed the title WIP: Client sca issues benchmark (depends on #145) Client sca issues benchmark (depends on #145) Feb 3, 2020
@dtebbs dtebbs force-pushed the client-sca-issues branch from af4da2d to 5fb2d1d Compare February 4, 2020 15:14
@dtebbs dtebbs force-pushed the client-sca-issues-benchmark branch from 1b05e93 to 4097870 Compare February 4, 2020 16:49
@dtebbs dtebbs force-pushed the client-sca-issues branch from 5fb2d1d to 5335eb7 Compare February 5, 2020 16:36
@AntoineRondelet
Copy link
Contributor

Can you please change the target branch to develop @dtebbs?

@dtebbs dtebbs changed the base branch from client-sca-issues to develop February 7, 2020 15:08
@dtebbs dtebbs force-pushed the client-sca-issues-benchmark branch from 4097870 to ef59c1c Compare February 7, 2020 15:24
@dtebbs
Copy link
Contributor Author
dtebbs commented Feb 7, 2020

Can you please change the target branch to develop @dtebbs?

I've moved the target branch and rebased. Thanks.

@dtebbs dtebbs changed the title Client sca issues benchmark (depends on #145) Benchmarks at depth 32 Feb 14, 2020
@dtebbs dtebbs force-pushed the client-sca-issues-benchmark branch from ef59c1c to 2c37f79 Compare February 25, 2020 14:59
@dtebbs dtebbs force-pushed the client-sca-issues-benchmark branch from 2c37f79 to 035be1a Compare February 25, 2020 15:53
@dtebbs dtebbs force-pushed the client-sca-issues-benchmark branch from 035be1a to 1159dbd Compare February 26, 2020 11:34
@dtebbs dtebbs force-pushed the client-sca-issues-benchmark branch from 1159dbd to a5d5f6b Compare February 26, 2020 11:36
@AntoineRondelet AntoineRondelet merged commit e2ae520 into develop Feb 26, 2020
@AntoineRondelet AntoineRondelet deleted the client-sca-issues-benchmark branch February 26, 2020 12:25
AntoineRondelet added a commit that referenced this pull request May 6, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants
0