forked from mCaptcha/website
blog styling and pow performance post
This commit is contained in:
parent
595d927fbf
commit
e5f7a2c1d0
GPG key ID:
AD9F0F08E855ED88
3 changed files with 128 additions and 3 deletions
|
|
@ -26,3 +26,11 @@
|
|||
.blog-footer {
|
||||
text-align: center;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
.lead {
|
||||
color: #5d2f86;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
body.dark .lead {
|
||||
color: #8ed6fb;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
117
content/blog/pow-performance/index.md
Normal file
117
content/blog/pow-performance/index.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: "PoW performance"
|
||||
description: "PoW performance of native and WASM implementations. Does
|
||||
the native implementation have and edge over the WASM library?"
|
||||
lead: "We are mCaptcha. We build kickass CAPTCHA systems that gives (DDoS) attackers a run for their money. And we do all of this without tracking your users. Oh and did I mention our UX is great?"
|
||||
date: 2021-05-26
|
||||
lastmod: 2021-05-26
|
||||
draft: false
|
||||
weight: 50
|
||||
images: ["icon.png"]
|
||||
contributors: ["Aravinth Manivannan"]
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
mCaptcha uses a
|
||||
[proof-of-work(PoW)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_work) mechanism
|
||||
to rate limit users or potential bots. In order for this to be
|
||||
effective, the PoW should be configured properly. The difficulty
|
||||
requirement can't be too high, as it could cause accessibility issues on
|
||||
the client-side while at the same time, it shouldn't be too low, as it
|
||||
wouldn't offer proper protection against bots.
|
||||
|
||||
Malicious bots(the ones that wreak havoc), run native code which is
|
||||
capable of running in a multi-threaded context. This creates an unfair
|
||||
advantage for crackers using these bots over legitimate users, who
|
||||
usually | browsers to access a website. I wanted to see how much of
|
||||
an advantage a native program would have over our WASM library.
|
||||
|
||||
## Benchmark tools
|
||||
|
||||
So I wrote these to compare native and WASM performances:
|
||||
|
||||
- Browser benchmark: [https://mCaptcha.github.io/benches](https://mCaptcha.github.io/benches)
|
||||
- Native benchmark: [mCaptcha/cli managed by scripts/bench.sh](https://github.com/mCaptcha/cli/blob/master/scripts/bench.sh)
|
||||
|
||||
{{< alert icon="⭐" text="Feel free to reproduce the results!" >}}
|
||||
|
||||
## Results
|
||||
|
||||
The tests were run on my development machine featuring an Intel Core
|
||||
i7-9750h.
|
||||
|
||||
### Native
|
||||
|
||||
| Difficulty | Real | User | Sys |
|
||||
| ---------- | -------- | -------- | -------- |
|
||||
| 50000 | 0m0.040s | 0m0.040s | 0m0.000s |
|
||||
| 300000 | 0m0.122s | 0m0.122s | 0m0.000s |
|
||||
| 550000 | 0m0.124s | 0m0.119s | 0m0.003s |
|
||||
| 800000 | 0m0.123s | 0m0.118s | 0m0.003s |
|
||||
| 1050000 | 0m0.933s | 0m0.932s | 0m0.000s |
|
||||
| 1300000 | 0m1.227s | - | 0m0.007s |
|
||||
| 1550000 | 0m1.260s | 0m1.256s | 0m0.003s |
|
||||
| 1800000 | 0m1.243s | 0m1.242s | 0m0.000s |
|
||||
| 2050000 | 0m2.524s | 0m2.510s | 0m0.000s |
|
||||
| 2300000 | 0m2.545s | 0m2.543s | 0m0.000s |
|
||||
| 2550000 | 0m2.561s | 0m2.551s | 0m0.004s |
|
||||
| 2800000 | 0m2.555s | 0m2.540s | 0m0.006s |
|
||||
| 3050000 | 0m2.513s | 0m2.508s | 0m0.000s |
|
||||
| 3300000 | 0m2.484s | 0m2.481s | 0m0.000s |
|
||||
| 3550000 | 0m2.643s | 0m2.642s | 0m0.000s |
|
||||
| 3800000 | 0m2.663s | 0m2.661s | 0m0.000s |
|
||||
| 4050000 | 0m2.663s | 0m2.660s | 0m0.000s |
|
||||
| 4300000 | 0m2.689s | 0m2.683s | 0m0.004s |
|
||||
| 4550000 | 0m2.688s | 0m2.686s | 0m0.000s |
|
||||
| 4800000 | 0m2.517s | 0m2.509s | 0m0.003s |
|
||||
|
||||
### Browser
|
||||
|
||||
I ran the tests on both Firefox and Chromium to compare results
|
||||
|
||||
### Firefox
|
||||
|
||||
- **User Agent:** `Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0`
|
||||
- **Hardware concurrency:** 12
|
||||
|
||||
| Difficulty | Duration(in ms) |
|
||||
| ---------- | --------------- |
|
||||
| 500000 | 401 |
|
||||
| 1000000 | 413 |
|
||||
| 1500000 | 398 |
|
||||
| 2000000 | 394 |
|
||||
| 2500000 | 1495 |
|
||||
| 3000000 | 1556 |
|
||||
| 3500000 | 3971 |
|
||||
| 4000000 | 4235 |
|
||||
| 4500000 | 4116 |
|
||||
|
||||
> To be fair, my Firefox installation is loaded with a gazillion
|
||||
> extensions while the Chromium instance is clean, as I don't use it
|
||||
> much
|
||||
|
||||
#### Chromium
|
||||
|
||||
- **User Agent:** `Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/92.0.4515.159 Safari/537.36`
|
||||
- **Hardware concurrency:** 12
|
||||
|
||||
| Difficulty | Duration(in ms) |
|
||||
| ---------- | ------------------ |
|
||||
| 500000 | 399.40000000037253 |
|
||||
| 1000000 | 354.6000000014901 |
|
||||
| 1500000 | 351.19999999925494 |
|
||||
| 2000000 | 353.80000000074506 |
|
||||
| 2500000 | 1337.800000000745 |
|
||||
| 3000000 | 1311.199999999255 |
|
||||
| 3500000 | 3417.5999999996275 |
|
||||
| 4000000 | 3488.800000000745 |
|
||||
| 4500000 | 3458.2999999988824 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Conclusion
|
||||
|
||||
At the highest difficulty factor, the native implementation was a almost second
|
||||
faster than the WASM library. But the fact that both of them were able
|
||||
to run to completion in under 5 seconds is impressive.
|
||||
|
||||
So, in my opinion, native implementation is only slightly faster than
|
||||
the WASM library and for all intents and purposes, this shouldn't matter
|
||||
much.
|
||||
|
|
@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
|
|||
<div class="card">
|
||||
<div class="card-body">
|
||||
<h2 class="h3"><a class="stretched-link text-body" href="{{ .Permalink }}">{{ .Params.title }}</a></h2>
|
||||
<p>{{ .Params.lead | safeHTML }}</p>
|
||||
<p>{{ .Params.description | safeHTML }}</p>
|
||||
{{ partial "main/blog-meta.html" . -}}
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue