![]() Hence, it's essential to have an unbiased and neutral approach to perform this comparison and also build this model realistically. However, most of them are flawed at the methodological level - doing one-off tests, using free tier accounts, testing easily cacheable methods, tampering with data as a part of the methodology, etc. We have seen many tools and discussions pop up in the recent past comparing the response time of blockchain node providers. Methodology for Comparing Response Time of Blockchain Node Providers In the following sections, we will define a methodology and then compare and discuss the response times of various blockchain node providers in the Web3 space. Hence, it's crucial to quantify the quality of the providers transparently as we move forward. Lately, we have seen many new players emerge in this industry, claiming to be the fastest node provider without any evident data. As stated earlier, running and managing nodes takes much work, so most of the industry players, including prominent ones, trust and leverage the services of these node providers to power their applications. They run and manage blockchain nodes in-house and usually provide end-users access over an API endpoint. Node providers come in to solve this dilemma. For example, when writing this article, Solana requires a minimum of 12 cores CPU with 128 GB RAM to run its blockchain client. And, with time, these requirements are set to increase. You not only require costly hardware with massive specifications to set up and run the node, but you also need a full-proof plan to manage that infrastructure regularly. Running a node now to support your production-ready application requires ample resources - it can be hectic. Unlike in earlier days when you could run a node on an ordinary computer, things have changed drastically. The blockchain space is advancing rapidly however, these numbers would become a reality only when the underlying infrastructure is robust enough to support the ambitious goals of these blockchains. And then blockchains like Solana took it a step further by eyeing a throughput of 65,000 transactions per second (TPS), with a theoretical throughput of 710,000 TPS in the future. Additionally, Layer 2 solutions built on Ethereum enhanced its efficiency. ![]() After the advent of Ethereum, things changed massively. The days of Bitcoin are far behind when one had to wait long for transactions to be processed. Could you risk your application performance because of this blockchain communication layer? The answer should be clear. Imagine running a DeFi / DEX aggregator like 1inch, providing a non-custodial wallet solution like Exodus, or presenting an NFT marketplace like MagicEden. An event doesn't exist if it's not recorded on the blockchain, i.e., there's an always-on blockchain communication layer in any Web3 application. With Web3, this performance stack has an additional layer: continuous interaction with the blockchain. It means the users would jump ship in favor of a competitor due to inadequate performance. A Case for Performance - Why Does It Matter?Īccording to research, 47 percent of users will leave a website if it does not load in two seconds, and 70 percent of mobile app users will abandon an app if it takes too long to load. While much has been done in the Web2 space to tackle this issue, the Web3 domain is still struggling. ![]() Whether Web2 or Web3, this is a crucial aspect of any application's adoption. More specifically (maintaining the context of this article), it's how fast the application loads and responds to user interactions. Application Performance In Web3Īpplication performance is a broad term covering many aspects, but we can boil it down to measuring an application's real-world performance and availability. The poor UX of Web3 applications can be pinned down to many things, mainly the application performance - speed. Similarly, one of the primary causes hindering the mainstream adoption of Web3 is the overall user experience (UX). " Speed helped make the internet what it has become." However, today, it's a different case - a product would not see the light if it's not fast enough. A couple of decades ago, an average Internet user would have been satisfied with an email delivered to the recipient in a few minutes. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |