1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
|
Return-Path: <peter.tschipper@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F61084
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 18 Nov 2015 14:00:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com (mail-pa0-f41.google.com
[209.85.220.41])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AF3A14E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 18 Nov 2015 14:00:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pabfh17 with SMTP id fh17so47515748pab.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 18 Nov 2015 06:00:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
:in-reply-to:content-type;
bh=QKJEOBH8PgwUVxGKU3sfz1wF7HJ6Y+U1iWWKlr0EJBc=;
b=se1dsx2+n8+A+VlkCpBOnh3YA4W0JOXRS4y2pQurjPVcxikt4i3FRMSUFBvSEEXlVC
xLgqNdfkcKMafAyH9ehoR5IfqBERk0qofk6eNjRq5tRb3QHO9YjfBr6uaHIPxH7addRl
kC107Df5sMsw/K0OP/HG26ENmYS1pXyQ9UGwAeUUkdHI9dm1p/YxXcz4M6qeFtw5IjHK
+nolkQUEK2alTfVh4WUTySdrKtUab1Z6Cr4BLtS3nbFeytVtRP4xWPOtDLJYfhrCm6eP
EF+KRdVN+sDPWwpxT0TstdHwiBEtZFnyhEfWztEbKyPF9Vu5NDg8WibsgXLSXt6xeERd
BdJw==
X-Received: by 10.68.248.102 with SMTP id yl6mr2387385pbc.10.1447855236095;
Wed, 18 Nov 2015 06:00:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.132] (S0106bcd165303d84.cc.shawcable.net.
[96.54.102.88]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
mt2sm4519438pbb.90.2015.11.18.06.00.34
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Wed, 18 Nov 2015 06:00:35 -0800 (PST)
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <5640F172.3010004@gmail.com> <20151109210449.GE5886@mcelrath.org>
<CAL7-sS0Apm4O_Qi0FmY7=H580rEVD6DYjk2y+ACpZmKqUJTQwA@mail.gmail.com>
<CALOxbZtTUrZwDfy_jTbs60n=K8RKDGg5X0gkLsh-OX3ikLf1FQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE-z3OUB-se_HUvW2NLjWt=0d5sgMiPEciu0hLzr_HQN0m9fqQ@mail.gmail.com>
<5642172C.701@gmail.com>
<CAE-z3OXgWCHL_3CDR-ACc7ojbLi7EavyObNa3s7hPUMGj_V2+A@mail.gmail.com>
<CADm_WcYAj9_r6tu8Be-U81LDwWvnv04PZJMmc-S4cY7+jxfzGw@mail.gmail.com>
<56438A55.2010604@gmail.com>
<CAE0pACK1-xQC4MsdbM46_Z0TQvZTrZKw4e8xFt3X=PmW7pmGJQ@mail.gmail.com>
<27BB52F9-3E3F-443D-93BC-B6843EB992F5@toom.im>
<56465CEE.6010109@gmail.com>
From: Peter Tschipper <peter.tschipper@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <564C8483.1000901@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 06:00:35 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56465CEE.6010109@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------040200020804030304040102"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] More findings: Block Compression (Datastream
Compression) test results using the PR#6973 compression prototype
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 14:00:37 -0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040200020804030304040102
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi all,
I'm still doing a little more investigation before opening up a formal
bip PR, but getting close. Here are some more findings.
After moving the compression from main.cpp to streams.h (CDataStream) it
was a simple matter to add compression to transactions as well. Results
as follows:
range = block size range
ubytes = average size of uncompressed transactions
cbytes = average size of compressed transactions
cmp_ratio% = compression ratio
datapoints = number of datapoints taken
range ubytes cbytes cmp_ratio% datapoints
0-250b 220 227 -3.16 23780
250-500b 356 354 0.68 20882
500-600 534 505 5.29 2772
600-700 653 608 6.95 1853
700-800 757 649 14.22 578
800-900 822 758 7.77 661
900-1KB 954 862 9.69 906
1KB-10KB 2698 2222 17.64 3370
10KB-100KB 15463 12092 21.8 15429
A couple of obvious observations. Transactions don't compress well
below 500 bytes but do very well beyond 1KB where there are a great deal
of those large spam type transactions. However, most transactions
happen to be in the < 500 byte range. So the next step was to appy
bundling, or the creating of a "blob" for those smaller transactions, if
and only if there are multiple tx's in the getdata receive queue for a
peer. Doing that yields some very good compression ratios. Some
examples as follows:
The best one I've seen so far was the following where 175 transactions
were bundled into one blob before being compressed. That yielded a 20%
compression ratio, but that doesn't take into account the savings from
the unneeded 174 message headers (24 bytes each) as well as 174 TCP
ACK's of 52 bytes each which yields and additional 76*174=13224 bytes,
making the overall bandwidth savings 32%, in this particular case.
*2015-11-18 01:09:09.002061 compressed blob from 79890 to 67426 txcount:175*
To be sure, this was an extreme example. Most transaction blobs were in
the 2 to 10 transaction range. Such as the following:
*2015-11-17 21:08:28.469313 compressed blob from 3199 to 2876 txcount:10*
But even here the savings are 10%, far better than the "nothing" we
would get without bundling, but add to that the 76 byte * 9 transaction
savings and we have a total 20% savings in bandwidth for transactions
that otherwise would not be compressible.
The same bundling was applied to blocks and very good compression ratios
are seen when sync'ing the blockchain.
Overall the bundling or blobbing of tx's and blocks seems to be a good
idea for improving bandwith use but also there is a scalability factor
here, when the system is busy, transactions are bundled more often,
compressed, sent faster, keeping message queue and network chatter to a
minimum.
I think I have enough information to put together a formal BIP with the
exception of which compression library to implement. These tests were
done using ZLib but I'll also be running tests in the coming days with
LZO (Jeff Garzik's suggestion) and perhaps Snappy. If there are any
other libraries that people would like me to get results for please let
me know and I'll pick maybe the top 2 or 3 and get results back to the
group.
On 13/11/2015 1:58 PM, Peter Tschipper wrote:
> Some further Block Compression tests results that compare performance
> when network latency is added to the mix.
>
> Running two nodes, windows 7, compressionlevel=6, syncing the first
> 200000 blocks from one node to another. Running on a highspeed
> wireless LAN with no connections to the outside world.
> Network latency was added by using Netbalancer to induce the 30ms and
> 60ms latencies.
>
> From the data not only are bandwidth savings seen but also a small
> performance savings as well. However, the overall the value in
> compressing blocks appears to be in terms of saving bandwidth.
>
> I was also surprised to see that there was no real difference in
> performance when no latency was present; apparently the time it takes
> to compress is about equal to the performance savings in such a situation.
>
>
> The following results compare the tests in terms of how long it takes
> to sync the blockchain, compressed vs uncompressed and with varying
> latencies.
> uncmp = uncompressed
> cmp = compressed
>
> num blocks sync'd uncmp (secs) cmp (secs) uncmp 30ms (secs) cmp
> 30ms (secs) uncmp 60ms (secs) cmp 60ms (secs)
> 10000 264 269 265 257 274 275
> 20000 482 492 479 467 499 497
> 30000 703 717 693 676 724 724
> 40000 918 939 902 886 947 944
> 50000 1140 1157 1114 1094 1171 1167
> 60000 1362 1380 1329 1310 1400 1395
> 70000 1583 1597 1547 1526 1637 1627
> 80000 1810 1817 1767 1745 1872 1862
> 90000 2031 2036 1985 1958 2109 2098
> 100000 2257 2260 2223 2184 2385 2355
> 110000 2553 2486 2478 2422 2755 2696
> 120000 2800 2724 2849 2771 3345 3254
> 130000 3078 2994 3356 3257 4125 4006
> 140000 3442 3365 3979 3870 5032 4904
> 150000 3803 3729 4586 4464 5928 5797
> 160000 4148 4075 5168 5034 6801 6661
> 170000 4509 4479 5768 5619 7711 7557
> 180000 4947 4924 6389 6227 8653 8479
> 190000 5858 5855 7302 7107 9768 9566
> 200000 6980 6969 8469 8220 10944 10724
>
>
--------------040200020804030304040102
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi all,<br>
<br>
I'm still doing a little more investigation before opening up a
formal bip PR, but getting close. Here are some more findings.<br>
<br>
After moving the compression from main.cpp to streams.h
(CDataStream) it was a simple matter to add compression to
transactions as well. Results as follows:<br>
<br>
range = block size range<br>
ubytes = average size of uncompressed transactions<br>
cbytes = average size of compressed transactions<br>
cmp_ratio% = compression ratio<br>
datapoints = number of datapoints taken<br>
<br>
<table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse;width:289pt"
border="0" width="385" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td style="height:12.75pt;width:80pt" height="17"
width="106">range</td>
<td style="width:48pt" width="64">ubytes</td>
<td style="width:47pt" width="63">cbytes</td>
<td style="width:66pt" width="88">cmp_ratio%</td>
<td style="width:48pt" width="64">datapoints</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl22" style="height:12.75pt" height="17">0-250b</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">220</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">227</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">-3.16</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">23780</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl22" style="height:12.75pt" height="17">250-500b</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">356</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">354</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">0.68</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">20882</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl22" style="height:12.75pt" height="17">500-600</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">534</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">505</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">5.29</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">2772</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl22" style="height:12.75pt" height="17">600-700</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">653</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">608</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">6.95</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">1853</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl22" style="height:12.75pt" height="17">700-800</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">757</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">649</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">14.22</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">578</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl22" style="height:12.75pt" x:str="800-900 "
height="17">800-900<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">822</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">758</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">7.77</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">661</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl22" style="height:12.75pt" height="17">900-1KB</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">954</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">862</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">9.69</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">906</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl22" style="height:12.75pt" x:str="1KB-10KB "
height="17">1KB-10KB<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">2698</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">2222</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">17.64</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">3370</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl22" style="height:12.75pt" height="17">10KB-100KB</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">15463</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">12092</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">21.8</td>
<td class="xl22" x:num="">15429</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
A couple of obvious observations. Transactions don't compress
well below 500 bytes but do very well beyond 1KB where there are a
great deal of those large spam type transactions. However, most
transactions happen to be in the < 500 byte range. So the next
step was to appy bundling, or the creating of a "blob" for those
smaller transactions, if and only if there are multiple tx's in
the getdata receive queue for a peer. Doing that yields some very
good compression ratios. Some examples as follows:<br>
<br>
The best one I've seen so far was the following where 175
transactions were bundled into one blob before being compressed.
That yielded a 20% compression ratio, but that doesn't take into
account the savings from the unneeded 174 message headers (24
bytes each) as well as 174 TCP ACK's of 52 bytes each which yields
and additional 76*174=13224 bytes, making the overall bandwidth
savings 32%, in this particular case.<br>
<br>
<b>2015-11-18 01:09:09.002061 compressed blob from 79890 to 67426
txcount:175</b><br>
<br>
To be sure, this was an extreme example. Most transaction blobs
were in the 2 to 10 transaction range. Such as the following:<br>
<br>
<b>2015-11-17 21:08:28.469313 compressed blob from 3199 to 2876
txcount:10</b><br>
<br>
But even here the savings are 10%, far better than the "nothing"
we would get without bundling, but add to that the 76 byte * 9
transaction savings and we have a total 20% savings in bandwidth
for transactions that otherwise would not be compressible.<br>
<br>
The same bundling was applied to blocks and very good compression
ratios are seen when sync'ing the blockchain.<br>
<br>
Overall the bundling or blobbing of tx's and blocks seems to be a
good idea for improving bandwith use but also there is a
scalability factor here, when the system is busy, transactions are
bundled more often, compressed, sent faster, keeping message queue
and network chatter to a minimum.<br>
<br>
I think I have enough information to put together a formal BIP
with the exception of which compression library to implement.
These tests were done using ZLib but I'll also be running tests in
the coming days with LZO (Jeff Garzik's suggestion) and perhaps
Snappy. If there are any other libraries that people would like
me to get results for please let me know and I'll pick maybe the
top 2 or 3 and get results back to the group.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 13/11/2015 1:58 PM, Peter Tschipper wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56465CEE.6010109@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Some further Block Compression tests results that compare
performance when network latency is added to the mix.<br>
<br>
Running two nodes, windows 7, compressionlevel=6, syncing the
first 200000 blocks from one node to another. Running on a
highspeed wireless LAN with no connections to the outside world. <br>
Network latency was added by using Netbalancer to induce the 30ms
and 60ms latencies.<br>
<br>
From the data not only are bandwidth savings seen but also a small
performance savings as well. However, the overall the value in
compressing blocks appears to be in terms of saving bandwidth. <br>
<br>
I was also surprised to see that there was no real difference in
performance when no latency was present; apparently the time it
takes to compress is about equal to the performance savings in
such a situation.<br>
<br>
<br>
The following results compare the tests in terms of how long it
takes to sync the blockchain, compressed vs uncompressed and with
varying latencies.<br>
uncmp = uncompressed<br>
cmp = compressed<br>
<br>
<table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse;width:653pt"
border="0" width="872" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<colgroup><col
style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:4498;
width:92pt" span="5" width="123"> <col
style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:4900;width:101pt"
width="134"> <col
style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:4498;width:92pt"
width="123"> </colgroup><tbody>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td style="height:12.75pt;width:92pt" height="17"
width="123">num blocks sync'd</td>
<td style="width:92pt" width="123">uncmp (secs)</td>
<td style="width:92pt" width="123">cmp (secs)</td>
<td style="width:92pt" width="123">uncmp 30ms (secs)</td>
<td style="width:92pt" width="123">cmp 30ms (secs)</td>
<td style="width:101pt" width="134">uncmp 60ms (secs)</td>
<td style="width:92pt" width="123">cmp 60ms (secs)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl24" style="height:12.75pt" x:num="" height="17">10000</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">264</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">269</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">265</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">257</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">274</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">275</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl24" style="height:12.75pt" x:num="" height="17">20000</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">482</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">492</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">479</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">467</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">499</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">497</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl24" style="height:12.75pt" x:num="" height="17">30000</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">703</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">717</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">693</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">676</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">724</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">724</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl24" style="height:12.75pt" x:num="" height="17">40000</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">918</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">939</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">902</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">886</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">947</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">944</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl24" style="height:12.75pt" x:num="" height="17">50000</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1140</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1157</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1114</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1094</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1171</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1167</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl24" style="height:12.75pt" x:num="" height="17">60000</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1362</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1380</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1329</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1310</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1400</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1395</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl24" style="height:12.75pt" x:num="" height="17">70000</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1583</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1597</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1547</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1526</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1637</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1627</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl24" style="height:12.75pt" x:num="" height="17">80000</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1810</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1817</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1767</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1745</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1872</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1862</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl24" style="height:12.75pt" x:num="" height="17">90000</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">2031</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">2036</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1985</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">1958</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">2109</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">2098</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl24" style="height:12.75pt" x:num="" height="17">100000</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">2257</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">2260</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">2223</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">2184</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">2385</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">2355</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl24" style="height:12.75pt" x:num="" height="17">110000</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">2553</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">2486</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">2478</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">2422</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">2755</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">2696</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl24" style="height:12.75pt" x:num="" height="17">120000</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">2800</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">2724</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">2849</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">2771</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">3345</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">3254</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl24" style="height:12.75pt" x:num="" height="17">130000</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">3078</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">2994</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">3356</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">3257</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">4125</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">4006</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl24" style="height:12.75pt" x:num="" height="17">140000</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">3442</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">3365</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">3979</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">3870</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">5032</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">4904</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl24" style="height:12.75pt" x:num="" height="17">150000</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">3803</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">3729</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">4586</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">4464</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">5928</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">5797</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl24" style="height:12.75pt" x:num="" height="17">160000</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">4148</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">4075</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">5168</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">5034</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">6801</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">6661</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl24" style="height:12.75pt" x:num="" height="17">170000</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">4509</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">4479</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">5768</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">5619</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">7711</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">7557</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl24" style="height:12.75pt" x:num="" height="17">180000</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">4947</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">4924</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">6389</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">6227</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">8653</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">8479</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl24" style="height:12.75pt" x:num="" height="17">190000</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">5858</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">5855</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">7302</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">7107</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">9768</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">9566</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:12.75pt" height="17">
<td class="xl24" style="height:12.75pt" x:num="" height="17">200000</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">6980</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">6969</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">8469</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">8220</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">10944</td>
<td class="xl24" x:num="">10724</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------040200020804030304040102--
|
