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?
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]
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
Items 501–600 of 632
Building Efficient Parallel Endorsement Node on Blockchain Systems
Deng, Y., Li, M., Zhang, H., Huo, D., Zhang, Y., Yun, S., Wang, Y., & Xu, Z. (2023) · International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD) · doi:10.1109/cscwd57460.2023.10152732 · Cited by 1
Semantics-Based, Automated Preparation of Exploratory Data Analysis for Complex Systems
Al-Gburi, N., Klenik, A., & Kocsis, I. (2023) · IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW) · doi:10.1109/issrew60843.2023.00054 · Cited by 1
Performance Analysis of Public and Private Blockchains and Future Research Directions
Harish, V., & Sridevi, R. (2023) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-981-99-4433-0_33 · Cited by 1
An Adaptive Blockchain-Based Decentralized Network Computing and Performance Analysis
Seol, J., Kentner, K., Park, I. N., Joshi, S., & Park, N. (2023) · International Conference on Blockchain Computing and Applications (BCCA) · doi:10.1109/bcca58897.2023.10338897 · Cited by 1
HealthBridge: A Decentralized and Interoperable Healthcare App for Rare Disease Communities
Guo, Z., Wang, Y., Liang, A., Devanter, W. V., & Zhang, P. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) · doi:10.1109/bibm58861.2023.10385268 · Cited by 1
Sathio, A. A., Rind, M. M., & Awan, S. A. (2025) · Advances in environmental engineering and green technologies book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-0300-0.ch002 · Cited by 1
Enhancing Hyperledger Fabric: A Scalable Framework for Optimized Blockchain Performance
Saha, A., Majumder, S., Manik, M. M. H., & Hashem, M. M. A. (2024) · International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (ICCIT) · doi:10.1109/iccit64611.2024.11022136 · Cited by 1
Alkalifah, B., & Rassam, M. A. (2025) · Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering · doi:10.1007/s13369-025-10564-5 · Cited by 1
Hyperledger für Supply Chains in der Luftfahrtindustrie
Wickboldt, C. (2020) · Edition HMD · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-28006-2_10 · Cited by 1
Using Distributed Ledger Technology to Mitigate Challenges with Flight Information Exchange
Raju, R., Mital, R., & Mital, R. (2019) · IEEE/AIAA Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC) · doi:10.1109/dasc43569.2019.9081743 · Cited by 1
MEMBANDINGKAN PERFORMA ANTARA HYPERLEDGER DAN MYSQL
Herwanto, R., Purbo, O. W., & Sriyanto, S. (2020) · Jurnal Informatika · doi:10.30873/ji.v20i1.1816 · Cited by 1
Hardening Permissioned Blockchains with Verifiable Randomness
Barger, A., Manevich, Y., & Meir, H. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC) · doi:10.1109/icbc48266.2020.9169471 · Cited by 1
Design and Implementation of Four-Meter Reading Sharing System Based on Blockchain
Xiang, B., Yu, Z., Xie, K. C., Guo, S., Dai, M., & Shao, S. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-57881-7_68 · Cited by 1
Camilo, G. F., Rebello, G. A. F., Souza, L. A. C. D., & Duarte, O. C. M. B. (2020) · doi:10.5753/wblockchain.2020.12428 · Cited by 1
Blockchain Medicine Administration Records (BMAR): Reflections and Modelling Blockchain with UML
Mitchell, I. (2021) · Advanced sciences and technologies for security applications · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-68534-8_2 · Cited by 1
Platforms and Tools Within the HyperLedger Framework
Fourati, L. C., Layeb, T., Haddaji, A., Ayed, S., & Bekri, W. (2021) · Advances in information security, privacy, and ethics book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-5839-3.ch002 · Cited by 1
Blockchain based energy transactions for a prosumer community
Karandikar, N. R. (2021) · University of Stavanger eBooks · doi:10.31265/usps.92 · Cited by 1
Smart Electricity and Consumer Management Using Hyperledger Fabric Technology
Tahreen, F., kumar, S. S., Krishna, G., & Zarin, F. (2021) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-981-16-4486-3_32 · Cited by 1
Blockchain Based Lateral Transshipment
Ates, A., & Özsoy, A. (2021) · International Conference on Blockchain Computing and Applications (BCCA) · doi:10.1109/bcca53669.2021.9656959 · Cited by 1
Privacy Preserving Contact Tracing using Ethereum Blockchain Network
Goel, R., Singh, U. N. K., & Sadhya, D. (2022) · IEEE Region 10 Symposium (TENSYMP) · doi:10.1109/tensymp54529.2022.9864380 · Cited by 1
Engineering a Trustworthy Private Blockchain for Operational Risk Management
Becherer, M., Zipperle, M., Green, S., Gottwalt, F., Bui‐Nguyen, T., & Chang, E. J. (2020) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119698821.ch11 · Cited by 1
Models and simulation of blockchain systems
Alharby, M. (2020) · Cited by 1
Machine learning applied to prediction, control and planning from dynamic epidemiological models
Bent, O. (2020) · Oxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) · doi:10.5287/ora-b7qkedzkb · Cited by 1
Nouman, M., Azam, M., & Gill, A. R. (2022) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202207.0259.v1 · Cited by 1
Addressing Scalability Issues in Blockchain: A Use case from HealthcarePreprint
Sadath, L., Mehrotra, D., & Kumar, A. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1903767/v1 · Cited by 1
Eklund, P., Søgaard, J. S., Herskind, L., & Spasovski, J. (2022) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.21676748.v1 · Cited by 1
Blockchain for Mobile Networks
Costa‐Pérez, X., Sciancalepore, V., Zanzi, L., & Albanese, A. (2023) · Blockchains · doi:10.1002/9781119781042.ch7 · Cited by 1
Rebello, G. A. F., Camilo, G. F., Silva, L., Guimarães, L., de Souza, L. A. C., Alvarenga, I. D., & Duarte, O. C. M. B. (2019) · doi:10.5753/wblockchain.2019.7480
SwiftFabric: Optimizing Fabric Private Data Transaction Flow TPS
Li, M., Huo, D., Liu, C., Wang, H., Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Zou, P., Li, Y., & Xu, Z. (2019) · IEEE International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing with Applications (ISPA) · doi:10.1109/ispa-bdcloud-sustaincom-socialcom48970.2019.00053
Marques, M. A., & Miers, C. C. (2020) · Escola Regional de Alto Desempenho da Região Sul (ERAD-RS) · doi:10.5753/eradrs.2020.10785
Enactment of Block Chain under Supply Chain Management A Study on Seafood Companies in Pakistan
Hussain, S. (2020) · Karachi University Business Research Journal · doi:10.46568/kubrj.v1i1.8
Atomic Execution of Optimization Transactions on Permissioned Blockchains
Narayanam, K., Sampath, K., Kumar, K., Danda, S. K. R., & Dayama, P. S. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC) · doi:10.1109/icbc51069.2021.9461083
Blockchain based remote voting system: a performance perspective
Paneru, S. (2021) · UVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria)
Blockchain-based Traceability Management System Using Split Root Hash Method
Furuya, N., Hasegawa, M., Kosaka, T., & Komoda, N. (2021) · IEEJ Transactions on Electronics Information and Systems · doi:10.1541/ieejeiss.141.1101
Meng, F., Ding, Y., Chen, D., Fang, Y., & Li, Z. (2021) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-981-16-7993-3_37
CBProf: Customisable Blockchain-as-a-Service Performance Profiler in Cloud Environments
Xin, R., Mohazzab, J., Shi, Z., & Zhao, Z. (2022) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-96527-3_9
FDataCollector: A Blockchain Based Friendly Web Data Collection System
Wang, J., Zhu, W., Lai, J., & Wang, Z. (2021) · International Conference on Mobility, Sensing and Networking (MSN) · doi:10.1109/msn53354.2021.00115
Minimizing Risk of Disputes Among Telecommunication Carriers With Blockchain Technologies
Trandafili, E., Biba, M., & Çela, E. (2022) · Advances in logistics, operations, and management science book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-5279-0.ch008
Implementation of Digital Log-book System for Lifts and Escalators Based on Blockchain Technology
Yeung, W.-K., Stephen, M. K. T., Jerry, Y. K. W., Cheung, M., Ashley, K. Y. C., Lui, G., & Kevin, K. K. C. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Blockchain (Blockchain) · doi:10.1109/blockchain55522.2022.00056
Um Estudo Inicial sobre a Importância de Simular Contratos Inteligentes em Blockchain
Gomes, A. N., & Coutinho, E. F. (2022) · doi:10.5753/mssis.2022.225407
Eklund, P., Søgaard, J. S., Herskind, L., & Spasovski, J. (2022) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.21676748
Eklund, P., Søgaard, J. S., Herskind, L., & Spasovski, J. (2022) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.21676748.v2
Smart Contracts for the CloudAnchor Platform
Vasco, E., Veloso, B., & Malheiro, B. (2022) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-18192-4_34
Análise de Custo de Infraestrutura em Redes Blockchain Públicas e Permissionadas
Mendonça, R. D., Dantas, P. H., Gonçalves, G. D., Vieira, A. B., & Nacif, J. A. M. (2022) · doi:10.5753/wblockchain.2022.223483
Cloud Auto-scaling Auditing Approach using Blockchain
Alsharidah, A. A., Barati, M., Bergami, G., & Ranjan, R. K. (2022) · IEEE/ACM International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing (UCC) · doi:10.1109/ucc56403.2022.00068
Chan, W. L., & Burra, V. D. K. (2023) · Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation/Advances in science, technology & innovation · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-20182-0_6
Blockchain and Edge Computing Integration Boosts Scalability and Reduces Latency
Mahfuri, M., Alnawaiseh, A. E., Asad, U., Yousif, M., Aslam, S., Chabani, Z., & Fiaz, M. (2023) · International Conference on Business Analytics for Technology and Security (ICBATS) · doi:10.1109/icbats57792.2023.10111165
Utilizing Different Predictive Methods to Optimize Hyperledger Fabric Instance
Aqid, B. M., Chacko, J. A., & Jacobsen, H. A. (2023) · International Conference on Computer System, Information Technology, and Electrical Engineering (COSITE) · doi:10.1109/cosite60233.2023.10249552
BoCB: Performance Benchmarking by Analysing Impacts of Cloud Platforms on Consortium Blockchain
Huang, Z., Garg, S., Yang, W., Lohachab, A., Amin, M. B., & Kang, B. H. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-99-7855-7_4
An Extensible and Traceable Data Operation Recording System Architecture and Method
Xia, Q., Han, J., & Wang, Z. (2023) · International Conference on Cyber Security and Information Engineering (ICCSIE) · doi:10.1145/3617184.3630129
A Journey Towards the Most Efficient State Database For Hyperledger Fabric
Laishevskiy, I., Barger, A., & Gorgadze, V. (2023) · Advances in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning · doi:10.54364/aaiml.2023.1188
Mitchell, I. G., & Maka, K. (2024) · Advanced sciences and technologies for security applications · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47594-8_3
Chowdhury, S. D., Ahmed, T., Amin, R., Chowdhury, R. A., Tanjim, S. M., & Lysuzzaman, M. (2024) · International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communication, Electrical, and Smart Systems (iCACCESS) · doi:10.1109/icaccess61735.2024.10499543
Blockchain Mining: Understanding Its Difficulty in Terms of Hashing Algorithm Efficiency
Martínez, C. M. (2024) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1005350
Practical Runtime Verification of Cross-Organizational Smart Contracts
Kangogo, D. J., Péter, B. Z., Klenik, A., & Kocsis, I. (2026) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2026.3718770
A Comprehensive Study on Benchmarking Permissioned Blockchains
Chacko, J. A., Mayer, R., Fekete, A. D., Gramoli, V., & Jacobsen, H. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-68031-1_2
Melo, C., Gonçalves, G. D., Silva, F. A., Fé, I., Moura, E. M. D. A., & Soares, A. C. B. (2024) · doi:10.5753/sbrc.2024.1485
Quantitative Study on the Performance of an Asynchronous Chain Model
Seol, J., Pu, C., & Park, N. (2025) · Distributed Ledger Technologies Research and Practice · doi:10.1145/3712619
Standardized Blockchain Structure using TLV-Encoding for Large-scale Interoperability
Bukhari, S., Sharif, K., & Zhu, L. (2024) · International Conference on Blockchain Computing and Applications (BCCA) · doi:10.1109/bcca62388.2024.10844490
Distributed Ledger Based Optimal Solution Architecture for A Secure Blood Screening System
Nath, D., & Bhaumik, P. (2024) · IEEE Pune Section International Conference (PuneCon) · doi:10.1109/punecon63413.2024.10894922
Jarosz, M., Wrona, K., & Zieliński, Z. (2025) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics14061229
Transforming EHR Systems Using the HyperLedger Fabric Blockchain Framework
Samsir, N. A., & Jain, A. A. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-86305-9_32
Bbtm-Is: A New Blockchain-Based Trust Management Model in Information SystemsPreprint
Sharifpour, M., Tochae, S. A. A., & Shahbakhti, K. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5258854
Onyeashie, B. I., Abubakar, M., Leimich, P., McKeown, S., & Russell, G. (2025) · International Conference on New Trends in Computing Sciences (ICTCS) · doi:10.1109/ictcs65341.2025.10989348
Intelligent Block Data Storage in Electronic Health Repositories: AI-Driven Recommendation System
Kaur, K., Singh, S., Nirsanametla, Y., Kumar, P., Bisht, Y. S., & Habelalmateen, M. I. (2025) · Lecture notes in electrical engineering · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-2528-4_24
Melo, C., Miqueias, J., Gonçalves, G. D., Silva, F. A., Soares, A. C. B., & Messias, J. (2025) · doi:10.5753/sbrc.2025.6358
Amiri, M. J., Agrawal, D., & Abbadi, A. E. (2025) · Synthesis lectures on data management · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-91058-6_3
Blockchain Design Methods and Reference Architecture for Healthcare Applications
Ramachandran, M. (2025) · Blockchain technologies · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-4360-8_10
Alzahrani, F., Idris, M. Y., Rohani, M. F., & Budiarto, R. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3589165
FabricTCA: A two-level conflict avoidance approach to consortium blockchains
Wu, H., Liu, H., Zhang, L., Sun, Y., & Li, J. (2025) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2025.108029
Privacy-Preserving Analysis of Blockchain Based Federated Learning Method in IIoT
Sindi, A. O. N., Si, P., Li, Q., Yan, S., & Liu, J. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-6462-7_2
Blockchain Approach for Real-Time Authentication in 6G Machine-to-Machine Communication
Arunachalam, M., Sidharth, P., Nair, S. S., Rajiv, N., & Babu, R. T. S. (2025) · Advances in wireless technologies and telecommunication book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-0568-4.ch006
Louja, A., Zaiouane, Y., Benchrif, M., Azizi, N., Jamali, A., & Naja, N. (2026) · Multimedia Systems · doi:10.1007/s00530-026-02317-7
Performance Analysis Of Blockchain Networks In A Healthcare Context
Almeida, S., Praxedes, W. L. D. L., Hollanda, L. B., de Souza, C. T., & Rodrigues, A. W. D. O. (2025) · doi:10.5753/erad-ne.2025.11762
DJOUBOUSSI, B. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5412860
Uma Análise sobre o Impacto da Quantidade de Transações no Tamanho dos Blocos em Blockchain
Gomes, A. N., Silva, I. B., de Souza, C. P., & Coutinho, E. F. (2025) · doi:10.5753/mssis.2025.12558
Lock Your Lands – Securing Land Records with Blockchain and IoT
Reddy, P. V. J. S., Madhurima, G., & Suganya, R. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-02537-1_23
A High-Throughput Method for Fabric in Scenarios With Multiple Aborted Transactions
Wang, Y., Ren, S., Jia, D., Tan, A., & Gao, Z. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Big Data · doi:10.1109/tbdata.2025.3639992
Balatska, V., Tkachuk, R., Ivanusa, A., Yashchuk, V., & Maslova, N. (2025) · Bulletin of Lviv State University of Life Safety · doi:10.32447/20784643.32.2025.07
The Use of Blockchain to Secure IoT Big Data
Gospodinov, T., & Lambov, I. (2025) · International Conference on Big Data, Knowledge and Control Systems Engineering (BdKCSE) · doi:10.1109/bdkcse67969.2025.11300501
A Blockchain Review Based on the Scalability Trilemma
Melo, C., Gonçalves, G. D., Silva, F. A., & Soares, A. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-12879-9_26
Mathur, K., Burns, E. A., Gajamannage, K., & Mathur, S. (2026) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) · doi:10.1093/jrsssa/qnag006
An Early Conflict Resolution Mechanism for Blockchain-Based Delay-Sensitive IoT Networks
Pathak, A., Al‐Anbagi, I., & Hamilton, H. J. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management · doi:10.1109/tnsm.2026.3667085
Performance Improvement of Hyperledger Iroha under Network Latency Conditions
Sakamoto, A., & Oguchi, M. (2026) · 2012 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC) · doi:10.1109/icnc68183.2026.11416924
Creating a Supply Chain and Implementing Its Encryption Solution for Secure Data Storage
Bálint, K. (2026) · IEEE World Symposium on Applied Machine Intelligence and Informatics (SAMI) · doi:10.1109/sami68106.2026.11420551
BPO-CBS: A Data-Driven Blockchain Performance Optimization Framework for Cloud Blockchain Services
Wang, J., Zhang, X., Liu, L., Yang, X., Zhou, T., Miao, C., Zhu, R., & Jin, Z. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing · doi:10.1109/tcc.2026.3677471
A Secure IoT-Based Electricity and Water Monitoring System with Real-Time Billing
Ali, M. A., Husain, H. A., Marhoon, H. H., & Elmedany, W. M. (2025) · International Conference on Innovation and Intelligence for Informatics, Computing, and Technologies (3ICT) · doi:10.1109/3ict68299.2025.11442118
Katoon, P. M., & Turukmane, A. V. (2026) · Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications · doi:10.1007/s12083-026-02205-x
Asynchronous Blockchain Recording for Chain-of-Thought Tracing in Small Language Models
Park, S., Kim, S., Choi, H., Yoo, N.-H., & Yang, J. (2026) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Information and Communication (ICAIIC) · doi:10.1109/icaiic68212.2026.11454192
Consensus Byzantin et blockchain : Modèles unifiés et nouveaux protocoles
Durand, A. (2021) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/b441c3a1zf42cz4cd7z8594z7121c5089d1f
Dhrubo, T. H., Siddika, A., & Saima, Z. (2026) · doi:10.31223/x5q19p
Brînzea, A., Bureacă, E., Leancă, R.-A., Arseni, Ş.-C., & Pop, F. (2026) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app16083838
Melo, C., & Araujo, J. (2026) · IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon) · doi:10.1109/syscon66367.2026.11503582
Pathak, A., Kansara, A., Al‐Anbagi, I., & Hossain, M. S. (2026) · IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine · doi:10.1109/mvt.2026.3689253
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
