Skip to content
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

Chores/213 ordinals readme #218

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

jeremy-babylonlabs
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@jeremy-babylonlabs jeremy-babylonlabs changed the base branch from dev to main July 25, 2024 17:34
@jeremy-babylonlabs jeremy-babylonlabs marked this pull request as ready for review July 25, 2024 17:34
@jeremy-babylonlabs jeremy-babylonlabs self-assigned this Jul 25, 2024
The Ordinal Service Client is the primary method for checking inscriptions on UTXOs. It connects directly to a running instance of the [Ordinal Service](https://github.com/ordinals/ord).

### Verification Process

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

could u add the endpoint that we are using from ordinal service?
Also worth adding some of the load test result from @filippos47
i.e

Did a stress test with the latest 450k BTC txs (100 blocks) on a single ord instance with 5k concurrent users:
Latencies
50th percentile: 0.5 - 2 s
95th percentile: 5 - 6.5 s
RPS
peak: 1.1k RPS
sustained >800 RPS for 15 mins
Resources-wise, the bare-metal host barely felt any effect

and lower rps (100 rps) has better p95 performance latency around 300ms

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I haven't seen service maintainers including performance data (eg RPS / latencies) in READMEs. These data can greatly vary depending on network / compute.

If you still feel it's helpful, I'll write something.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added the endpoint

Copy link
Collaborator

@jrwbabylonlab jrwbabylonlab Jul 29, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we don't have benchmark, so i think have something to give a rough idea is better than nothing.
at least we know it's ~300ms level for 100 rps, not 30s 😄

@jrwbabylonlab
Copy link
Collaborator

Closing this PR. it will be address in other PR

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.

3 participants