acid-info
/
vac.dev
mirror of https://github.com/acid-info/vac.dev.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Waku post msic fixes and feedback

This commit is contained in:
Oskar Thoren 2020-02-13 13:41:35 +08:00
parent ecf2458554
commit 94787a5925
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: B2ECCFD3BC2EF77E
1 changed files with 9 additions and 8 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

17
_posts/2020-02-10-waku-current-state.md
View File

@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ discuss: https://forum.vac.dev/t/TODOFIXME
---
TODO: Picture for bottleneck or Waku
TODO: Fix date
# Where we are at with Waku?
@ -24,17 +25,15 @@ Waku is our fork of Whisper where we address the shortcomings of Whisper in an i
We've cut the spec up into three components. These are:
- Waku (main spec), currently in [version 0.2.0](https://specs.vac.dev/waku/waku.html)
- Waku (main spec), currently in [version 0.3.0](https://specs.vac.dev/waku/waku.html)
- Waku envelope data field, currently in [version 0.1.0](https://specs.vac.dev/waku/envelope-data-format.html)
- Waku mailserver, currently in [version 0.2.0](https://specs.vac.dev/waku/mailserver.html)
TODO: Update Waku spec to 0.3
**Clients:**
There are currently two clients that implement Waku, these are [Nimbus](https://github.com/status-im/nimbus/tree/master/waku) in Nim and [status-go](https://github.com/status-im/status-go) in Go.
At the time of writing the Nimbus client implements the spec fully, but lacks mail server and mail client capability. The status-go client implements everything except bridging mode, which is currently a work in progress.
At the time of writing the Nimbus client implements the spec fully, but lacks mail server/client, rate limiting and confirmations capability. The status-go client implements everything except bridging mode, which is currently a work in progress.
For more details, see [implementation matrix](https://specs.vac.dev/waku/waku.html#appendix-b-implementation-notes).
@ -72,13 +71,15 @@ TODO: Elaborate on bottleneck 3, kad etc
## Simulation
The ultimate test is real-world usage. Until then, we have a simulation. Here's some data on this.
The ultimate test is real-world usage. Until then, we have a simulation thanks to Kim De Mey from the Nimbus team!
![](assets/img/waku_simulation.jpeg)
Here we outline two network topologies, Star and full mesh, with 6 randomly connected nodes and 2 X, sending 10000 random envelopes over random topics, including invalid envelopes.
We have two network topologies, Star and full mesh, with 6 randomly connected nodes, one traditional light node with bloom filter (Whisper style) and one Waku light node.
For light node, bloom filter is set to 1% false positive. It shows the number of valid and invalid envelopes received for the different nodes.
One of the full nodes sends 1 envelope over 1 of the 100 topics that the two light nodes subscribe to. After that, it sends 10000 envelopes over random topics.
For light node, bloom filter is set to almost 10% false positive (bloom filter: n=100, k=3, m=512). It shows the number of valid and invalid envelopes received for the different nodes.
**Star network:**
@ -107,7 +108,7 @@ For light node, bloom filter is set to 1% false positive. It shows the number of
| Waku light node | 2 | 1 | 1 |
Things to note:
- Whisper light node with 1% false positive gets 1% of total traffic
- Whisper light node with ~10% false positive gets ~10% of total traffic
- Waku light node gets ~1000x less envelopes than Whisper light node
- Full mesh results in a lot more duplicate messages, expect for Waku light node