Here is a dedicated forum post for keeping track of Nano stress tests, measured primarily in CPS.
| Date | Peak | Avg | Env | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 May 18 | 1853 | 150 | Beta | v21db13, The goal of this test was to saturate the nodes and then sustain high throughput, rather than trying to reach the peak limit of CPS (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) |
| 2020 Apr 13 | 1,295 | 734+ | Beta | v21db12 (1, 2, 3) |
| 2020 Mar 13 | 1,197 | 734? | Beta | 6 PRs, some PRs dropped (1, 2, 3) |
| 2020 Mar 13 | 95 | 95 | Beta | 96 bps pre-test; flat avg & 47ms median conf time (1) |
| 2020 Jan 24 | 744 | 740 | Beta | v21db4, just above saturation (1, 2, 3) |
| 2020 Jan 18 | 600 | 600 | Beta | v21db2, below the saturation point (1, 2) |
| 2019 Dec 30 | 87 | 55 | Prod | 8+ hours at 55+ (1, 2, 3, 4) |
| 2019 Dec 21-29 | 8 | 7.4 | Prod | 8+ days at 7+ CPS, median conf time .3 seconds (1, 2, 3) |
| 2019 Dec 19 | 493 | ~200 | Beta | 700 BPS, hit saturation (1, 2, 3) |
| 2019 Dec 19 | 498 | 498 | Beta | No saturation; <5 sec conf times (1, 2, 3, 4) |
| 2019 Nov 26 | 48 | 40 | Prod | 0.4 avg conf time (1, 2,) |
| 2019 Oct 28 | 400 | 89 | Beta | N/A (1, 2, 3) |
| 2019 Sep 3 | N/A | 300 | Beta | 170ms median conf time (1, 2) |
| 2019 Aug 1-5 | N/A | 8 | Prod | 4 day test (1, 2) |
| 2019 Aug 3 | 25 | N/A | Prod | 0.5-0.7 conf times (1) |
| 2019 Jul 10 | 150 | 138 | Beta | 1st test measuring CPS instead of TPS (1) |
| 2019 May 24 | 80* | N/A | Beta | Last test measuring per-node TPS* (1) |
| 2019 Apr 13 | N/A | 40* | Prod | N/A (1) |
| 2018 Aug 23 | 919* | N/A | Beta | Single node peak (1, 2) |
| 2018 Aug 17 | 756* | 75* | Beta | N/A (1) |
| 2018 Feb 2 | 40* | N/A | Prod | N/A (1, 2) |
| 2018 Jan N/A | 120* | 35* | Prod | N/A (1) |
| 2018 Jan N/A | 306* | 105* | Prod | N/A (1) |
| 2017 N/A N/A | Paper/Lab | Theoretical profile (1, 2) |
BPS vs CPS vs TPS
*For earlier stress tests, the only numbers we have are TPS numbers (not CPS). TPS was a per-node measurement that represented the perceived network-level transmission rate (BPS), but this measurement was found to be somewhat inaccurate due to peering and propagation differences between nodes. CPS is now the preferred term for describing overall Nano network scalability, and is what listed in the above table for all tests newer than May 24, 2019. The older stress tests listed in the table don't have CPS data, only the original TPS measurement (aka perceived BPS).
It is also important to note that the CPS measurement in Nano is not the exact same thing as the TPS measurement from other cryptocurrencies; CPS/2 is a closer comparison. While Nano transactions do not require a corresponding receive transaction to be considered confirmed (irreversible), there must be a corresponding receive transaction before received funds can be spent again. From the Nano glossary:
- BPS - Blocks Per Second, the transmission rate of unconfirmed blocks (transactions) on the network
- CPS - Confirmations Per Second, the rate of confirmed blocks (send or receive)
- TPS - Transactions Per Second
Beta network saturation points
- v19rc3 - 83 CPS [1] [2]
- v19 - 200 CPS
- v20 - 350 CPS
- v21db1 - 500 CPS
- v21db2 - 700 CPS
- v21db4 - 740 CPS
- v21db10 - 750+
Additional information
While some of the weaker nodes dropped offline (as expected) during some of these stress tests, the Nano network itself stayed online and functional. One of the biggest issue with testing the production environment is typically generating enough blocks (PoW) to actually stress the network.
Remember that even just 50 TPS (100 CPS) is 4,320,000 transactions per day, and Nano can do that pretty comfortably:
- Bitcoin has never done >500,000 transactions a day
- Ethereum has never done >1.5 million transactions per day
- PayPal (centralized) was only doing ~5 million transactions per day in 2011 with almost 100,000,000 users
Nano is doing really well imo, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a 1,000+ TPS stress test in the next few years.
![[1]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/478299776211877898/725396357434834964/image0.png){kind=link}