The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 10 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform
Open accessAbstract
The rise in popularity of permissioned blockchain platforms in recent time is significant. Hyperledger Fabric is one such permissioned blockchain platform and one of the Hyperledger projects hosted by the Linux Foundation. The Fabric comprises various components such as smart-contracts, endorsers, committers, validators, and orderers. As the performance of blockchain platform is a major concern for enterprise applications, in this work, we perform a comprehensive empirical study to characterize the performance of Hyperledger Fabric and identify potential performance bottlenecks to gain a better understanding of the system. We follow a two-phased approach. In the first phase, our goal is to understand the impact of various configuration parameters such as block size, endorsement policy, channels, resource allocation, state database choice on the transaction throughput & latency to provide various guidelines on configuring these parameters. In addition, we also aim to identify performance bottlenecks and hotspots. We observed that (1) endorsement policy verification, (2) sequential policy validation of transactions in a block, and (3) state validation and commit (with CouchDB) were the three major bottlenecks. In the second phase, we focus on optimizing Hyperledger Fabric v1.0 based on our observations. We introduced and studied various simple optimizations such as aggressive caching for endorsement policy verification in the cryptography component (3x improvement in the performance) and parallelizing endorsement policy verification (7x improvement). Further, we enhanced and measured the effect of an existing bulk read/write optimization for CouchDB during state validation & commit phase (2.5x improvement). By combining all three optimizations1, we improved the overall throughput by 16x (i.e., from 140 tps to 2250 tps).
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper empirically benchmarks Hyperledger Fabric v1.0 across block size, endorsement policy, channels, resource allocation, and state database choices, identifying three major bottlenecks. It then introduces MSP caching, parallel VSCC validation, and CouchDB bulk read/write optimizations, improving single-channel throughput from 140 tps to 2250 tps (16×).
Key findings
- Fabric v1.0 saturated around 140 tps with GoLevelDB on a single channel; latency rose from hundreds of milliseconds to tens of seconds near saturation because VSCC validation ran serially on one vCPU.
- GoLevelDB throughput was 3× greater than CouchDB (140 tps vs. 50 tps); with CouchDB, increasing writes dropped throughput from 50 tps to 18 tps, while GoLevelDB showed no such impact.
- The three identified bottlenecks were endorsement policy verification, sequential policy validation of transactions in a block, and state validation/commit with CouchDB.
- Optimizations: MSP cache gave 3× improvement, parallel endorsement policy verification gave 7×, and CouchDB bulk read/write gave 2.5×; combined, they improved single-channel throughput from 140 tps to 2250 tps (16×).
Methods
- Empirical study of Hyperledger Fabric v1.0 using over 1000s of experiments, varying block size, endorsement policy, channels, resource allocation, and ledger database.
- Test network: 4 organizations, each with 2 endorsing peers (8 peer nodes total), 1 orderer with Kafka-Zookeeper, on IBM SoftLayer VMs with 32 vCPUs and 3 Gbps network; load generated by three client machines with 56 vCPUs and 128 GB memory.
- Custom benchmark modeled from 12 internal customer solutions, using write-only and read-write transactions; Fabric source was instrumented to collect fine-grained latencies such as VSCC, MVCC, and ledger update latency.
Limitations
- Stated: the ordering service performance was not studied; network was assumed not to be a bottleneck; arrival rates did not follow a distribution model; scalability and fault tolerance are left for future work.
- Stated: the study focuses on Fabric v1.0, though the authors note the optimizations were adopted in v1.1 and core functionality remains similar.
- Evident: results are tied to a specific datacenter setup, hardware allocation, single orderer, and benchmark workloads derived from 12 internal customer solutions, so generalization to other topologies, WAN deployments, or production arrival distributions is not established.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
43 Own result · 28 No basis given · 27 Own interpretation · 8 Sources not found · 4 Own method
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With an increase in the number of channels, the percentage of improvement decreased.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > B. Parallel VSCC Validation of a Block
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With an increase in the number of signatures verification (specifically for NOutOf), the VSCC latency increased linearly from 68 ms to 137 ms.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > B. Impact of Endorsement Policy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The performance increased significantly from 50 tps to 115 tps (i.e., by 2.3×) for transactions with a single write.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > C. Bulk Read/Write During MVCC Validation & Commit
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The maximum throughput achieved with GoLevelDB on a single channel was 140 tps (refer to Figure 4)”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > C. Impact of Channels and Resource Allocation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For an arrival rate lower than the saturation point, with an increase in the block size, the latency increased.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > A. Impact of Transaction Arrival Rate and Block Size
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the endorsement and commit latency (of successful transactions) observed with 2 vCPUs were lesser than 4 vCPUs as shown in Figure 9(b).”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > C. Impact of Channels and Resource Allocation
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that the block bytes increased with increase in the number of endorsements due to the number of x.509 certificates encoded in each transaction.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > B. Impact of Endorsement Policy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For e.g., When the number of vCPUs allocated were lesser than 16 for 16 channels, the throughput reduced significantly from 848 tps to 32 tps (by 26×) -refer to Figure 9(b).”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > C. Impact of Channels and Resource Allocation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, for instance, when the block size was 100 and arrival rate increased from 25 to 75 tps, the latency increased from 900 ms to 1250 ms.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > A. Impact of Transaction Arrival Rate and Block Size
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, throughput also increased by 3.5%.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > A. Impact of Transaction Arrival Rate and Block Size
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 26
- Probably not a substantial claim. 9
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
In the paper
“1) Deserialization of identity (i.e., x.509 certificate). 2) Validation of identity with organization MSP [9]. 3) Verification of signature on the transaction data.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > B. Impact of Endorsement Policy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [9]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“when the endorsement policy required signature from two endorsers (defined using AND/OR syntax), the maximum throughput achieved without MSP cache was 160 tps while with cache, it increased to 540 tps.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > A. MSP Cache
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With the increase in the number of channels, the throughput increased and latency decreased.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > C. Impact of Channels and Resource Allocation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For e.g., when the transaction arrival rate was 100 tps, for the block size of 50 and 100, the block creation rate was 2 and 1 block(s) per second, respectively, causing latency to double.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > A. Impact of Transaction Arrival Rate and Block Size
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, with further increase in the arrival rate, we observed no impact on the endorsement and broadcast latency but commit latency.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > A. Impact of Transaction Arrival Rate and Block Size
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For a 5 minutes run at an arrival rate of 150 tps, we observed 220K such validation out of which 96K validation failed that resulted in wastage of CPU and time.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > B. Impact of Endorsement Policy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For multiple writes (3-w & 5-w), the throughput increased from 26 tps to 100 tps (i.e., 3.8× for 3-w), and 18 tps to 90 tps (i.e., 5× for 5-w).”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > C. Bulk Read/Write During MVCC Validation & Commit
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For e.g., with the increase in the number of channels from 1 to 16, the throughput increased from 140 tps to 832 tps (i.e., by 6× in non-overloaded case) and to 1320 tps (i.e., 9.5× in overloaded case).”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > C. Impact of Channels and Resource Allocation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, both the average endorsement and commit latency exploded (from 37 ms to 21 s, and 640 ms to 49 s, respectively) due to a lot of contention on the CPU.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > C. Impact of Channels and Resource Allocation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The throughput and resource utilization during the non-overloaded case for one channel exploded from 130 tps to 800 tps (improved by 6.3×) for the block size of 30 and to 980 tps (7.5×) for the block size of 300.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > B. Parallel VSCC Validation of a Block
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We observed that (1) endorsement policy verification, (2) sequential policy validation of transactions in a block, and (3) state validation and commit (with CouchDB) were the three major bottlenecks.”
- Also stated in: § I. INTRODUCTION · plain
“We identified three major performance bottlenecks: (i) crypto operations, (ii) serial validation of transactions in a block, and (iii) multiple REST API calls to CouchDB.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § I. INTRODUCTION · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For e.g., the throughput achieved with 2 nd & 3 rd AND/OR policies was 7% & 20% lesser than other policies, respectively.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > B. Impact of Endorsement Policy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, these three optimizations have been successfully adopted in Fabric v1. 1”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > VIII. CONCLUSION & FUTURE WORK
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to the bulk read/write optimization, the MVCC latency, ledger update latency and endorsement latency decreased as shown in Figure 17(c) and (d) as compared to Figure 12.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > C. Bulk Read/Write During MVCC Validation & Commit
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, for 8 and 16 channels, the throughput increased to 2700 tps from 1025 tps and 1321 tps, respectively”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > D. Combinations of Optimizations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The network is not a bottleneck in the study (a datacenter or high-bandwidth, very-low-latency network is assumed).
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even with a throughput of 2700 tps, the average CPU utilization of a peer was only 60% and the network utilization of a peer was 1680 Mbps (send) and 240 Mbps (receive).”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > D. Combinations of Optimizations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, the endorsement latency, VSCC latency, MVCC latency and the ledger update latency was higher with CouchDB as compared to the GoLevelDB”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > C. Impact of Channels and Resource Allocation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With sub-policies, both the number of sub-policies (i.e., search space) and the number of signatures dictated the performance.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > B. Impact of Endorsement Policy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this experiment, the endorsement and broadcast latency was around 12 ms and 9 ms, respectively.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > A. Impact of Transaction Arrival Rate and Block Size
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We noticed similar improvements for read-write transactions.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > C. Bulk Read/Write During MVCC Validation & Commit
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The throughput saturated at 950 tps (for the block size of 30) & 1075 tps (for the block size of 300)”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > B. Parallel VSCC Validation of a Block
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Fabric supports two alternatives for key-value store, CouchDB [2] and GoLevelDB [7] to maintain the current state.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > 4) Resource Allocation.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [2]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [7]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, being a minor version update much of the core functionality remains the same and our observations hold true for v1.1 and future versions based on the new architecture of Fabric.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > VII. RELATED WORK
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For lower block sizes and at higher arrival rates, blocks were created faster (rather than waiting for a block timeout) which reduced the transaction waiting time at the orderer node.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > A. Impact of Transaction Arrival Rate and Block Size
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, we instrumented the Fabric source code to collect fine-grained latency such as MVCC latency and others latencies.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > IV. EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“because it only checks whether any read keys has been modified.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > D. Impact of Ledger Database
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to the CPU contention, the VSCC latency also increased that affected the commit latency as shown in Figure 9(c).”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > C. Impact of Channels and Resource Allocation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The throughput and transaction latency presented in this section are averaged over multiple runs.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Both are key-value stores, while GoLevelDB is an embedded database, CouchDB uses a client-server model (accessed using REST API over a secure HTTP) and supports document/JSON data-model.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > 4) Resource Allocation.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [2]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [7]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reasons for the reduction are twofold, endorsement requests timeout from less powerful peers and MVCC conflicts specifically for read/write transactions.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > C. Impact of Channels and Resource Allocation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The VSCC validation of a transaction' endorsements require evaluation of endorsement policy expression against the collected endorsements and checking for satisfiability [24], which is NP-Complete.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > 1) Block Size.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [24]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Hyperledger Fabric is one such permissioned blockchain platform and one of the Hyperledger projects hosted by the Linux Foundation [13].”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [13]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Hyperledger Fabric [16] is an enterprise-grade open-source permissioned blockchain platform which has a modular design and a high degree of specifiability through trust models and pluggable components.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > I. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [16]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The authors state this as an assumption.
The study assumes a datacenter or high bandwidth network with very low latency.
“While network characteristics are important, we assume a datacenter or high bandwidth network with very low latency for this study.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The orderer, gossip, and physical network were kept static and did not affect the experiments and observations.
“we keep the Orderer, Gossip (physical network) etc. static so that it does not affect our experiments and observations.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is a lack of standard benchmarks for blockchain.
“In the lack of standard benchmarks for Blockchain, we built our own benchmarks by surveying around 12 internal customer solutions built on Fabric for diverse use cases.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The network is not a bottleneck in the study (a datacenter or high-bandwidth, very-low-latency network is assumed).
“In our study, we assumed that the network is not a bottleneck.”
“While network characteristics are important, we assume a datacenter or high bandwidth network with very low latency for this study.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In 2016, blockchain platform Hyperledger Fabric [50,51] introduced multi-ledger based architecture for private network, as shown in Figure 7.”
From A Review of Blockchain Architecture and Consensus Protocols: Use Cases, Challenges, and Solutions (2019) · cites this paper as [51]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > C. Impact of Channels and Resource Allocation
“#Peers with (2, 32) vCPUs (0, 8), (2, 4), (4, 4), (8, 0) peers”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > C. Impact of Channels and Resource Allocation
“Observation 9: At moderate loads, even when the number of vCPUs allocated for 2 peers out of 8 were lesser than the channel count, performance degraded.For e.g., when only 2 vCPUs were allocated for 2 peers (others with 32 vCPUs), the throughput reduced from 848 tps to 417 tps (by 2×)”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > A. Impact of Transaction Arrival Rate and Block Size
“For e.g., when the arrival rate was 150 tps, with an increase in block size from 10 to 200, the transaction latency decreased from 14 secs to 10 secs.”
§ Performance Benchmarking and Optimizing Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform > A. Setup and Workloads
“TABLE II CONFIGURATION TO IDENTIFY THE IMPACT OF BLOCK SIZE AND TRANSACTION ARRIVAL RATE.Parameters Values Tx.Arrival Rate 25, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175 (tps) Block Size 10, 30, 50, 100 (#tx)”
Citations
Cites
Practical Byzantine fault tolerance
Castro, M., & Liskov, B. (1999) · USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation · doi:10.1145/296806.296824 · Cited by 5,499
Practical Byzantine fault tolerance
Castro, M., & Liskov, B. H. (1999) · Operating Systems Design and Implementation · doi:10.5555/296806.296824 · Cited by 4,026
Hyperledger fabric: a distributed operating system for permissioned blockchains
Androulaki, E., Barger, A., Bortnikov, V., Cachin, C., Christidis, K., De Caro, A., Enyeart, D., Ferris, C., Laventman, G., Manevich, Y., et al. (2018) · Proceedings of the Thirteenth EuroSys Conference · doi:10.1145/3190508.3190538 · Cited by 3,654
On the Security and Performance of Proof of Work Blockchains
Gervais, A., Karame, G., Wüst, K., Glykantzis, V., Ritzdorf, H., & Čapkun, S. (2016) · ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) · doi:10.1145/2976749.2978341 · Cited by 1,683
On Scaling Decentralized Blockchains
Croman, K., Decker, C., Eyal, I., Gencer, A. E., Juels, A., Kosba, A. E., Miller, A. E., Saxena, P., Shi, E., Sirer, E. G., et al. (2016) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-53357-4_8 · Cited by 1,199
The Quest for Scalable Blockchain Fabric: Proof-of-Work vs. BFT Replication
Vukolić, M. (2016) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39028-4_9 · Cited by 1,051
A critique of ANSI SQL isolation levels
Berenson, H., Bernstein, P., Gray, J., Melton, J., O'Neil, E., & O'Neil, P. (1995) · Proceedings of the 1995 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data - SIGMOD '95 · doi:10.1145/223784.223785 · Cited by 856
Dinh, T. T. A., Wang, J., Chen, G., Liu, R. Z. Z., Ooi, B. C., & Tan, K. (2017) · ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) · doi:10.1145/3035918.3064033 · Cited by 824
Introducing Ethereum and Solidity
Dannen, C. (2017) · Apress eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-2535-6 · Cited by 785
ARC: a self-tuning, low overhead replacement cache
Megiddo, N., & Modha, D. S. (2003) · Cited by 784
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- white, 0, Digitizing Global Trade with Maersk and IBM
- 0, e SDK for Fabric Client/Application
- 0, PostgreSQL as the State Database for Hyperledger Fabric
- 0, PostgreSQL Database Management System
- 0, The Linux Foundation Helps Hyperledger Build the Most Vibrant Open Source Ecosystem for Blockchain
- 0, Quorum an Ethereum-forked variant Blockchain
- 0, SecureKey Building Trusted Identity Networks
- nakamoto, 0, Bitcoin A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
- 0, CouchDB Document Revision Number
- 0, CouchDB Bulk API
- 0, Go SDK for Fabric Client/Application
- 0, Everledger - A Digital Global Ledger
- 0, Java SDK for Fabric Client/Application
- 0, GoLevelDB
- 0, CouchDB
- 0, Membership Service Providers (MSP)
- 0, Chaincodes
- detwiler, 0, One nations move to increase food safety with blockchain
- keller, 0, New collaboration on trade finance platform built on blockchain
- hearn, 0, Corda A distributed ledger
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Blockchain-based electronic healthcare record system for healthcare 4.0 applications
Tanwar, S., Parekh, K., & Evans, R. D. (2019) · Journal of Information Security and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.jisa.2019.102407 · Cited by 977
A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions
Uddin, M. A., Stranieri, A., Gondal, I., & Balasubramanian, V. (2021) · Blockchain: Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.bcra.2021.100006 · Cited by 365
Systematic Literature Review of Challenges in Blockchain Scalability
Khan, D., Jung, L. T., & Hashmani, M. A. (2021) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app11209372 · Cited by 385
TrustChain: Trust Management in Blockchain and IoT Supported Supply Chains
Malik, S., Dedeoglu, V., Kanhere, S. S., & Jurdak, R. (2019) · IEEE International Conference on Blockchain (Blockchain) · doi:10.1109/blockchain.2019.00032 · Cited by 329
Performance Evaluation of Blockchain Systems: A Systematic Survey
Fan, C., Ghaemi, S., Khazaei, H., & Musı́lek, P. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.3006078 · Cited by 325
Scalable blockchain model using off-chain IPFS storage for healthcare data security and privacy
Jayabalan, J., & Jeyanthi, N. (2022) · Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing · doi:10.1016/j.jpdc.2022.03.009 · Cited by 300
A systematic review of blockchain scalability: Issues, solutions, analysis and future research
Sanka, A. I., & Cheung, R. C. C. (2021) · Journal of Network and Computer Applications · doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2021.103232 · Cited by 319
Kuzlu, M., Pipattanasomporn, M., Gurses, L., & Rahman, S. (2019) · 2019 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain (Blockchain) · doi:10.1109/blockchain.2019.00003 · Cited by 279
A Review of Blockchain Architecture and Consensus Protocols: Use Cases, Challenges, and Solutions
Ismail, L., & Materwala, H. (2019) · Symmetry · doi:10.3390/sym11101198 · Cited by 278
FastFabric: Scaling Hyperledger Fabric to 20,000 Transactions per Second
Gorenflo, C., Lee, S., Golab, L., & Keshav, S. (2019) · IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC) · doi:10.1109/bloc.2019.8751452 · Cited by 260
Vacca, A., Sorbo, A. D., Visaggio, C. A., & Canfora, G. (2020) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2020.110891 · Cited by 258
Latency performance modeling and analysis for hyperledger fabric blockchain network
Xu, X., Sun, G., Luo, L., Cao, H., Yu, H., & Vasilakos, A. V. (2020) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2020.102436 · Cited by 228
FastFabric: Scaling hyperledger fabric to 20 000 transactions per second
Gorenflo, C., Lee, S., Golab, L., & Keshav, S. (2020) · International Journal of Network Management · doi:10.1002/nem.2099 · Cited by 221
FLchain: Federated Learning via MEC-enabled Blockchain Network
Majeed, U., & Hong, C. S. (2019) · Asia-Pacific Network Operations and Management Symposium (APNOMS) · doi:10.23919/apnoms.2019.8892848 · Cited by 221
Permissioned blockchain frameworks in the industry: A comparison
Polge, J., Robert, J., & Traon, Y. L. (2020) · ICT Express · doi:10.1016/j.icte.2020.09.002 · Cited by 208
Performance Modeling of Hyperledger Fabric (Permissioned Blockchain Network)
Sukhwani, H., Wang, N., Trivedi, K. S., & Rindos, A. (2018) · 2018 IEEE 17th International Symposium on Network Computing and Applications (NCA) · doi:10.1109/nca.2018.8548070 · Cited by 203
Design of personnel big data management system based on blockchain
Chen, J., Lv, Z., & Song, H. H. (2019) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2019.07.037 · Cited by 193
Blockchain-Based Identity Management: A Survey From the Enterprise and Ecosystem Perspective
Kuperberg, M. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2019.2926471 · Cited by 187
EACMS: Emergency Access Control Management System for Personal Health Record Based on Blockchain
Rajput, A. R., Li, Q., Taleby Ahvanooey, M., & Masood, I. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2917976 · Cited by 166
A Blockchain-Based Framework for Supply Chain Provenance
Cui, P., Dixon, J. E., Guin, U., & DiMase, D. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2949951 · Cited by 152
A Privacy-Preserving Healthcare Framework Using Hyperledger Fabric
Stamatellis, C., Papadopoulos, P., Pitropakis, N., Katsikas, S. K., & Buchanan, W. (2020) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s20226587 · Cited by 150
Scalable blockchains — A systematic review
Nasir, M. H., Arshad, J., Khan, M. M., Fatima, M., Salah, K., & Jayaraman, R. (2021) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2021.07.035 · Cited by 154
Systematic Review on AI-Blockchain Based E-Healthcare Records Management Systems
Haddad, A., Habaebi, M. H., Islam, M. R., Hasbullah, N. F., & Zabidi, S. A. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3201878 · Cited by 152
Nathan, S., Govindarajan, C., Saraf, A., Sethi, M., & Jayachandran, P. (2019) · Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment · doi:10.14778/3342263.3342632 · Cited by 145
Self-citationPotential Risks of Hyperledger Fabric Smart Contracts
Yamashita, K., Nomura, Y., Zhou, E., Pi, B., & Jun, S. (2019) · 2019 IEEE International Workshop on Blockchain Oriented Software Engineering (IWBOSE) · doi:10.1109/iwbose.2019.8666486 · Cited by 131
Gohar, A. N., AbdelMawgoud, S. A., & Farhan, M. S. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3202902 · Cited by 136
Treiblmaier, H., Rejeb, A., & Strebinger, A. (2020) · Smart Cities · doi:10.3390/smartcities3030044 · Cited by 135
Reaching Consensus in the Byzantine Empire: A Comprehensive Review of BFT Consensus Algorithms
Zhang, G., Pan, F., Mao, Y., Tijanic, S., Dang’ana, M., Motepalli, S., Zhang, S., & Jacobsen, H. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3636553 · Cited by 122
Simulation Model for Blockchain Systems Using Queuing Theory
Memon, R. A., Li, J., & Ahmed, J. (2019) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics8020234 · Cited by 120
A Transactional Perspective on Execute-order-validate Blockchains
Ruan, P., Loghin, D., Ta, Q.-T., Zhang, M., Chen, G., & Ooi, B. C. (2020) · ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) · doi:10.1145/3318464.3389693 · Cited by 120
Industry 4.0 Applications for Medical/Healthcare Services
Paul, S., Riffat, M., Yasir, A., Mahim, M. N., Sharnali, B. Y., Naheen, I. T., Rahman, A., & Kulkarni, A. (2021) · Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks · doi:10.3390/jsan10030043 · Cited by 124
Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain: Chaincode Performance Analysis
Foschini, L., Gavagna, A., Martuscelli, G., & Montanari, R. (2020) · International Conference on Communications · doi:10.1109/icc40277.2020.9149080 · Cited by 119
Performance and Scalability of Private Ethereum Blockchains
Schäffer, M., di Angelo, M., & Salzer, G. (2019) · Lecture notes in business information processing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30429-4_8 · Cited by 112
An in-depth investigation of the performance characteristics of Hyperledger Fabric
Guggenberger, T. M., Sedlmeir, J., Fridgen, G., & Luckow, A. (2022) · Computers & Industrial Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.cie.2022.108716 · Cited by 109
Ali, G., Ahmad, N., Cao, Y., Khan, S., Cruickshank, H. S., Ali, Q. E., & Ali, A. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2982542 · Cited by 105
On Consortium Blockchain Consistency: A Queueing Network Model Approach
Meng, T., Zhao, Y., Wolter, K., & Xu, C. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems · doi:10.1109/tpds.2021.3049915 · Cited by 103
Blockchain Performance Analysis for Supporting Cross-Border E-Government Services
Geneiatakis, D., Soupionis, Y., Steri, G., Kounelis, I., Neisse, R., & Fovino, I. N. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2020.2979325 · Cited by 102
Tith, D., Lee, J.-S., Suzuki, H., Wijesundara, W. M. A. B., Taira, N., Obi, T., & Ohyama, N. (2020) · Healthcare Informatics Research · doi:10.4258/hir.2020.26.1.3 · Cited by 101
Blockchain Evaluation Approaches: State-of-the-Art and Future Perspective
Smetanin, S., Ometov, A., Komarov, M. M., Mašek, P., & Koucheryavy, Y. A. (2020) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s20123358 · Cited by 101
ParBlockchain: Leveraging Transaction Parallelism in Permissioned Blockchain Systems
Amiri, M. J., Agrawal, D., & Abbadi, A. E. (2019) · IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS) · doi:10.1109/icdcs.2019.00134 · Cited by 100
A blockchain-based eHealthcare system interoperating with WBANs
Wang, J., Han, K., Alexandridis, A., Chen, Z., Žilić, Ž., Pang, Y., Jeon, G., & Piccialli, F. (2019) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2019.09.049 · Cited by 99
Karandikar, N., Chakravorty, A., & Rong, C. (2021) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s21113822 · Cited by 96
Performance Modeling of Hyperledger Sawtooth Blockchain
Ampel, B., Patton, M. W., & Chen, H. (2019) · IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics (ISI) · doi:10.1109/isi.2019.8823238 · Cited by 93
A secure and efficient data sharing scheme based on blockchain in industrial Internet of Things
Chi, J., Li, Y., Huang, J., Liu, J., Jin, Y., Chen, C., & Qiu, T. (2020) · Journal of Network and Computer Applications · doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2020.102710 · Cited by 93
A Blockchain-Based Secret-Data Sharing Framework for Personal Health Records in Emergency Condition
Rajput, A. R., Li, Q., & Ahvanooey, M. T. (2021) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare9020206 · Cited by 90
Performance Analysis of Hyperledger Besu in Private Blockchain
Fan, C., Lin, C., Khazaei, H., & Musı́lek, P. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Decentralized Applications and Infrastructures (DAPPS) · doi:10.1109/dapps55202.2022.00016 · Cited by 86
Tan, E., Lerouge, E., Caju, J. D., & Seuil, D. D. (2023) · Big Data and Cognitive Computing · doi:10.3390/bdcc7020079 · Cited by 84
Zheng, X., Zhu, Y., & Si, X. (2019) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app9224731 · Cited by 89
Wazid, M., Das, A. K., Shetty, S. S., & Jo, M. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2992467 · Cited by 80
Why Do My Blockchain Transactions Fail?
Chacko, J. A., Mayer, R., & Jacobsen, H. (2021) · ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) · doi:10.1145/3448016.3452823 · Cited by 79
A Permissioned Blockchain Based Access Control System for IOT
Islam, M. A., & Madria, S. (2019) · IEEE International Conference on Blockchain (Blockchain) · doi:10.1109/blockchain.2019.00071 · Cited by 76
Blockchains vs. Distributed Databases
Ruan, P., Dinh, T. T. A., Loghin, D., Zhang, M., Chen, G., Lin, Q., & Ooi, B. C. (2021) · ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) · doi:10.1145/3448016.3452789 · Cited by 76
Function-Level Bottleneck Analysis of Private Proof-of-Authority Ethereum Blockchain
Toyoda, K., Machi, K., Ohtake, Y., & Zhang, A. N. S. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.3011876 · Cited by 73
Performance Characterization and Bottleneck Analysis of Hyperledger Fabric
Wang, C., & Chu, X. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS) · doi:10.1109/icdcs47774.2020.00165 · Cited by 72
Performance modeling and analysis of a Hyperledger-based system using GSPN
Yuan, P., Zheng, K., Xiong, X., Zhang, K., & Lei, L. (2020) · Computer Communications · doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2020.01.073 · Cited by 72
Understanding blockchain: Definitions, architecture, design, and system comparison
Tabatabaei, M. H., Vitenberg, R. M., & Veeraragavan, N. R. (2023) · Computer Science Review · doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2023.100575 · Cited by 71
A Theoretical Model for Block Propagation Analysis in Bitcoin Network
Shahsavari, Y., Zhang, K., & Talhi, C. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2020.2989170 · Cited by 70
T, M. R. A., Balaji, B., R, S. A. P. R., Naidu, R. C., Rajesh Kumar, M., Ramachandran, P., Rajkumar, S., Kumar, V. N., Aggarwal, G., & Siddiqui, A. M. (2024) · IoT · doi:10.3390/iot5030025 · Cited by 68
Jameel, F., Javaid, U., Khan, W. U., Aman, M. N., Pervaiz, H., & Jäntti, R. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12125161 · Cited by 68
Performance analysis of Hyperledger Fabric platform: A hierarchical model approach
Jiang, L., Chang, X., Liu, Y., Mišić, J., & Mišić, V. B. (2020) · Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications · doi:10.1007/s12083-019-00850-z · Cited by 66
A blockchain technology based trust system for cloud manufacturing
Barenji, R. V. (2021) · Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing · doi:10.1007/s10845-020-01735-2 · Cited by 66
Two-Layered Blockchain Architecture for Federated Learning Over the Mobile Edge Network
Feng, L., Yang, Z., Guo, S., Qiu, X., Li, W., & Yu, P. (2022) · IEEE Network · doi:10.1109/mnet.011.2000339 · Cited by 64
NSBchain: A Secure Blockchain Framework for Network Slicing Brokerage
Zanzi, L., Albanese, A., Sciancalepore, V., & Costa‐Pérez, X. (2020) · International Conference on Communications · doi:10.1109/icc40277.2020.9149414 · Cited by 64
Optimizing Validation Phase of Hyperledger Fabric
Javaid, H., Hu, C., & Brebner, G. (2019) · Proceedings - International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems · doi:10.1109/mascots.2019.00038 · Cited by 64
An Efficient Privacy-preserving Authentication Model based on blockchain for VANETs
Feng, X., Shi, Q., Xie, Q., & Liu, L. (2021) · Journal of Systems Architecture · doi:10.1016/j.sysarc.2021.102158 · Cited by 63
Comparative analysis of permissioned blockchain frameworks for industrial applications
Capocasale, V., Gotta, D., & Perboli, G. (2022) · Blockchain Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.bcra.2022.100113 · Cited by 63
Abang, J. E., Takruri, H., Al-Zaidi, R., & Al-Khalidi, M. (2024) · Internet of Things · doi:10.1016/j.iot.2024.101217 · Cited by 67
Design and Implementation on Hyperledger-Based Emission Trading System
Yuan, P., Xiong, X., Lei, L., & Zheng, K. (2018) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2888929 · Cited by 59
Xu, X., Wang, X., Li, Z., Yu, H., Sun, G., Maharjan, S., & Zhang, Y. (2021) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2021.3050244 · Cited by 59
DAGBENCH: A Performance Evaluation Framework for DAG Distributed Ledgers
Dong, Z., Zheng, E., Lee, Y. C., & Zomaya, A. Y. (2019) · IEEE ... International Conference on Cloud Computing · doi:10.1109/cloud.2019.00053 · Cited by 59
Hang, L., & Kim, D. (2021) · Blockchain Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.bcra.2021.100009 · Cited by 58
Pradhan, N. R., Singh, A. P., Verma, S., Kavita, K., Kaur, N., Roy, D. S., Shafi, J., Woźniak, M., & Ijaz, M. F. (2022) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s22093449 · Cited by 57
Resource Analysis of Blockchain Consensus Algorithms in Hyperledger Fabric
Yang, G., Lee, K., Lee, K., Yoo, Y., Lee, H., & Yoo, C. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3190979 · Cited by 57
MedBloc: A Blockchain-Based Secure EHR System for Sharing and Accessing Medical Data
Huang, J., Qi, Y. W., Asghar, M. R., Meads, A., & Tu, Y. (2019) · IEEE International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom) · doi:10.1109/trustcom/bigdatase.2019.00085 · Cited by 56
Khan, M. M., Khan, F. S., Nadeem, M., Khan, T., Haider, S., & Daas, D. (2025) · Computers · doi:10.3390/computers14040132 · Cited by 56
Hyperledger Fabric Performance Characterization and Optimization Using GoLevelDB Benchmark
Nakaike, T., Zhang, Q., Ueda, Y., Inagaki, T., & Ohara, M. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC) · doi:10.1109/icbc48266.2020.9169454 · Cited by 55
Fair and Efficient Gossip in Hyperledger Fabric
Berendea, N., Mercier, H., Onica, E., & Rivière, É. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS) · doi:10.1109/icdcs47774.2020.00027 · Cited by 55
PetroBlock: A Blockchain-Based Payment Mechanism for Fueling Smart Vehicles
Jamil, F., Cheikhrouhou, O., Jamil, H., Koubâa, A., Derhab, A., & Ferrag, M. A. (2021) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app11073055 · Cited by 56
Decentralized data access control over consortium blockchains
Chen, Y., Chen, S., Liang, J., Feagan, L., Han, W., Huang, S. W., & Wang, X. S. (2020) · Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.is.2020.101590 · Cited by 52
Introducing Multi Shippers Mechanism for Decentralized Cash on Delivery System
Le, H. T., Tien, N., Phien, N. N., Duong‐Trung, N., Xuan, H., Tam, T., & Phuc, T. N. (2019) · International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications · doi:10.14569/ijacsa.2019.0100676 · Cited by 50
Kim, H., Turesson, H., Laskowski, M., & Bahreini, A. F. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2020.3003565 · Cited by 52
Pajooh, H. H., Rashid, M. A., Alam, F., & Demidenko, S. N. (2022) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s22134868 · Cited by 49
Jakhar, A. K., Singh, M., Sharma, R., Viriyasitavat, W., Dhiman, G., & Goel, S. (2024) · Multimedia Tools and Applications · doi:10.1007/s11042-024-18827-3 · Cited by 47
Blockchain based transactive energy systems for voltage regulation in active distribution networks
Saxena, S., Farag, H. E. Z., Turesson, H., & Kim, H. (2020) · IET Smart Grid · doi:10.1049/iet-stg.2019.0286 · Cited by 46
The Architectural Design Requirements of a Blockchain-Based Port Community System
Irannezhad, E. (2020) · Logistics · doi:10.3390/logistics4040030 · Cited by 46
Blockchain verification and validation: Techniques, challenges, and research directions
Marijan, D., & Lal, C. (2022) · Computer Science Review · doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2022.100492 · Cited by 45
Abutaleb, R. A., Alqahtany, S. S., & Syed, T. A. (2023) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app13021028 · Cited by 45
State of Public and Private Blockchains
Mohan, C. (2019) · ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) · doi:10.1145/3299869.3314116 · Cited by 45
Blockchain-based automated and robust cyber security management
He, S., Ficke, E., Pritom, M. M. A., Chen, H., Tang, Q., Chen, Q., Pendleton, M., Njilla, L., & Xu, S. (2022) · Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing · doi:10.1016/j.jpdc.2022.01.002 · Cited by 45
Lohachab, A., Garg, S., Kang, B. H., & Amin, M. B. (2021) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2021.01.023 · Cited by 44
Gaba, P., Raw, R. S., Mohammed, M. A., Nedoma, J., & Martínek, R. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3188296 · Cited by 43
Ahn, J., Yi, E., & Kim, M. (2024) · Information · doi:10.3390/info15100644 · Cited by 47
Distributed Access Control with Blockchain
Paillissé, J., Nieto, J. S., López, A., Rodríguez-Natal, A., Ermagan, V., Maino, F., & Cabellos‐Aparicio, A. (2019) · International Conference on Communications · doi:10.1109/icc.2019.8761995 · Cited by 43
Ramachandran, G. S., Wright, K.-L., Zheng, L., Navaney, P., Naveed, M., Krishnamachari, B., & Dhaliwal, J. (2019) · IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC) · doi:10.1109/bloc.2019.8751388 · Cited by 43
Blockchain-based IoT system for personalized indoor temperature control
Jeoung, J., Jung, S., Hong, T., & Choi, J. (2022) · Automation in Construction · doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104339 · Cited by 42
Ledgerdata Refiner: A Powerful Ledger Data Query Platform for Hyperledger Fabric
Zhou, E., Sun, H., Pi, B., Sun, J., Yamashita, K., & Nomura, Y. (2019) · International Conference on Internet of Things: Systems, Management and Security (IOTSMS) · doi:10.1109/iotsms48152.2019.8939212 · Cited by 42
A Transparent and Trusted Property Registration System on Permissioned Blockchain
Syed, T. A., Nadeem, A., Alzahrani, A., & Jan, S. (2020) · International Conference on Advances in the Emerging Computing Technologies (AECT) · doi:10.1109/aect47998.2020.9194222 · Cited by 42
Performance and availability evaluation of the blockchain platform hyperledger fabric
Melo, C., Oliveira, F. D. D. A., Dantas, J. R., de Araujo, J. C. T., Pereira, P., Maciel, R., & Maciel, P. (2022) · The Journal of Supercomputing · doi:10.1007/s11227-022-04361-2 · Cited by 42
Nasirifard, P., Mayer, R., & Jacobsen, H. (2019) · International Middleware Conference · doi:10.1145/3361525.3361540 · Cited by 41
Performance analysis of hyperledger fabric 2.0 blockchain platform
Dreyer, J., Fischer, M., & Tönjes, R. (2020) · doi:10.1145/3417310.3431398 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- Thakkar, P., Nathan, S., & Viswanathan, B.
- Affiliations
- National Institute of Technology Tiruchirappalli (IN)
- IBM Research - India (IN)
- Venue
- 2018 IEEE 26th International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems (MASCOTS)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2018-09
- Pages
- 264-276
- ISSN
- 1526-7539 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2806281946
- Cited by
- 632
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 45 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 79 · 2022: 97 · 2021: 118 · 2020: 107 · 2019: 84 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 61.41
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Proceedings - International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology in Education and Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Distributed systems and fault tolerance
- Keywords
- Hyperledger Fabric, permissioned blockchain, blockchain performance, performance bottlenecks, transaction throughput, latency, CouchDB, caching
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
