Sizing and performance


This section describes how Corda Enterprise nodes perform on, and can take advantage of, different host configurations, whether Virtual Machines or dedicated hardware, and how you might adjust the configuration and hosting of the node to influence the performance, based on the benchmarking experience of R3.

The numbers in the high level comparison chart below were achieved on Microsoft Azure virtual machines (VM), running against a Microsoft SQL Server database. Each node had their own instance of the database running on a separate VM from the node, with minimal latency between the node VM and the database server VM.

comparison chart The y-axis represents the number of flows completing per second, which we call Transactions Per Second (TPS) for simplicity although the actual number of Corda transactions per flow completing varies depending on the type of flow. The x-axis represents the performance with varying numbers of CPU cores configured for the VMs. Each bar indicates the performance of a particular type of flow and with a particular high-level node (or nodes) configuration as depicted by the bar colour.

See the sections below for a discussion of the configurations used in these tests.


  • Even a single core deployment of Corda Enterprise offers greater throughput than Open Source Corda.
  • Corda Enterprise can utilise servers in excess of 16 cores.
  • Corda Enterprise can scale approximately 10x by adding more cores for the flows used in the benchmarks.
  • A node can operate in 1GB of heap space and a small number of cores for the flows used.
  • An 8GB heap is sufficient for larger core counts and numbers of parallel flows, for the flows used.
  • Corda Enterprise throughput is dependent on the throughput of the underlying RDBMS.
  • The latency between the node and the database should be kept to a reasonable minimum.


With all of the preceding caveats and those that follow in the more detailed sections regarding how much all this depends on the CorDapps and workload, here are some simplistic node sizes. Refer to detail elsewhere in this section on what processing can be achieved with these sizings.

SizeJVM Heap# CoresMinimum Host RAM
Small1GB12GB to 3GB

It’s likely you’ll have (much) more RAM in larger VMs and physical servers, so feel free to give the node more heap. Disk requirements should be sufficient to store the binaries, log files (which could be large) and the Artemis MQ journal files, the latter dependent on queued messages. Several GB should be sufficient.

The flows used in the measurements

The results currently cover two main types of flow:

  • Issue. This a flow that issues a FungibleAsset based on the Cash state and contract in the finance module. The state is issued on a single node, in a single Corda transaction, is not notarised and appears in the vault of that node only thus there is no peer-to-peer communication taking place.
  • Issue + Pay. This is a more complex flow interaction made up of two high level steps of issuing a state to the local node (node A) in one Corda transaction (identical to Issue described above) and then transfering ownership of that state to a second node (node B). Additionally the contract requires that this second transfer transaction be timestamped and notarised, so the transaction is sent to the Notary by node A before all signatures are returned to node A who forwards to node B. It is important to note that this flow is much more complex in terms of the peer-to-peer communications than that description makes clear. Node B will never have seen the issuance transaction that contains the input state for the payment transaction and so node B enters transaction dependency resolution to request the first transaction from node A, resulting in additional sub-flows and peer-to-peer communication.

In summary, the Issue flow is pretty much the lightest weight flow imaginable that generates a Corda transaction. Issue + Pay is somewhat middling in complexity and the load it generates for a node. In future releases we will expand the range of scenarios to cover some in between, and some much more complex involving more steps, different sized transactions and/or more nodes with the hope that one of these could act as a proxy for your own flows if they don’t yet exist and cannot therefore be benchmarked. No two flows are the same and therefore any debate around sizing naturally leads to conversations around what type of flows, what size transactions involving what kinds of states and contracts. We thus can only give you a flavour of what might actually be required and/or possible.

We launch these flows using the RPC client. A limited number of flows are launched in parallel (up to 500 outstanding flows in the case of Issue) in order for the node to have enough load to reflect the performance expected and exploit the multi-threaded capabilities without overwhelming it with long queues of pending work (that will form a separate scenario as we develop the performance test suite further). Also see Limiting outstanding flows.

We measure the time taken from the time just before we request the execution of a flow from the RPC client to the time after we see the Future returned from startFlow RPC call complete on the client. At this point the transaction is recorded in all nodes that participate in the transactions and all sub-flows are complete.

The node configurations used in the measurements

We have established results for a number of different software configurations:

  • Single Notary. This uses the simple single node notary in non-validating mode. It persists to a Microsoft SQL Server database running on a distinct VM, both for notary specific data and other regular node data persistence. These notaries always ran on an 8 core VM.
  • Highly Available Notary. This uses a notary cluster made up of 3 nodes in non-validating mode. Normal node persistence uses a Microsoft SQL Server database but the notary state is maintained in a version of MySQL utilising a clustering technology as described in Highly Available Notary Service Setup. For full disclosure (and convenience for us) all 3 nodes are running in one data centre, which would not be a typical deployment. Whilst the latency between cluster members influences the performance of the notary itself, it is not operating at its limit even in that scenario here. These notaries always ran on an 8 core VM.
  • Open Source. This uses the latest available open source Corda at the time of the test, persisting to an in-process H2 database.
  • External Bridge (SenderReceiver). This hosts the inbound and outbound peer-to-peer traffic endpoint in a separate JVM process, rather than embedded in the main node JVM process.

In all cases the Artemis MQ broker is running within the node JVM.

We used the following Azure VM types for the nodes in this testing:

Azure VM type# Cores

Database server configuration

We have so far focused very little on optimising the node database server and thus have yet to extract the best throughput. The servers used in these tests were 4 cores, 28GB RAM (Azure DS12 v2 VM). Each had only one data disk (limited to 5000 IOPS). They ran SQL Server 2017 Standard Edition.

It’s important to note that like many applications, the node is very sensitive to latency between the node and database servers. We kept the latency here to a minimum, without resorting to any extreme measures, by keeping them in the same location and on the same subnet. We have tested with databases separated from the node with increased latency (high single digit, low double digit millisecond - effectively cross region) and it significantly impacts performance, with flows taking much longer to complete and overall throughput reduced accordingly.

Database storage

In our performance tests, on Microsoft SQL Server 2017, we see database table space usage of around 10KB per state with an additional 10KB per transaction. So a transaction with 3 output states would use 10KB + (3 x 10KB) = 40KB of storage. This will obviously vary dependent on the complexity of the states and the extent to which they implement vault schema mappings, and is something that is likely to be changed in future releases as we finesse transaction storage in the light of performance and privacy requirements.

Scaling with CPU core count

Corda Enterprise is able to make use of multiple cores by running flows simultaneously. When a flow is running (and not waiting for peer-to-peer messages) it splits its time between computation (running contract verification, signing transactions, etc.) and database writes and reads. When giving a node more and more CPU cores in order to scale up, at some point the balance of processing will shift to the database and the node will no longer be able to take advantage of additional CPU cores, reflected in an inability to drive CPU utilisation towards 100%.

As you can see from the summary chart, the node scales relatively well to 16 cores and is able to saturate up to 20 cores of a 32 core VM when running the Issue and Issue + Pay flows. This clearly demonstrates the ability of the node to utilise larger numbers of cores.

Also see the section on heap size regarding Netty memory allocation as this is linked to core count.

Sizing the flow thread pool

Key to unlocking this scaling is the thread pool that the node utilises for running flows in parallel. This thread pool has a finite size. The default settings are for the number of threads to be 2x the number of cores, but capped at 30. We require a database connection per flow and so that cap helps reduce unexpected incidents of running out of database connections. If your database server is configured to allow many more connections, and you have plenty of cores, then the flow thread pool should be configured to be much larger. A good starting point is to go with 4x core count. e.g. on a 32 core host, set the flowThreadPoolSize to 128. See Node configuration for more details on how to configure this setting.

We followed this ratio of 4x cores for flowThreadPoolSize when running our performance tests shown in the chart above. Increasing the number of threads for flows and the number of RPC clients currently just lead to an offsetting increase in database query times (and decrease in database throughput).

Sizing the heap

We typically run our performance tests with 8GB heaps, because this seems to give plenty of breathing room to the node JVM process. Settings below 1GB certainly start to apply memory pressure and can result in an OutOfMemoryError and are not recommended. This is due to many internal data structures within the Artemis MQ message broker and several caches in the Corda Enterprise node that have fixed upper bounds.

As with other JVM processes, do not set the maximum heap size of the node to use all available memory on the host. The operating system, file buffers, threads etc all consume non-heap memory.

It is also worth knowing that by default Netty, part of the embedded Artemis MQ broker (when it is indeed embedded in the node JVM process), will allocate chunks of memory for internal buffers from a pool size based on CPU core count. So if you wish to run on hosts with very large core counts, be sure to allocate a larger heap. Assume 16MB per core.

There are several fixed sized caches in Corda that means there is a minimum memory footprint. One cache that does resize as heap size varies is the transaction cache which is referred to during vault queries and transaction verification and resolution to reduce database accesses. It will take a minimum of 8MB of heap and up to 5% of the maximum heap size. So for a 1GB heap, this would be approximately 50MB.

It’s also important to take into account the memory footprint of live (i.e. incomplete) flows. The more live flows a node has, the more memory they will consume.

Limiting outstanding flows

When there is any sensitivity to latency, it is currently necessary to ensure that flows are not initiated faster than the node can process for a sustained period. The node will process flows in what it thinks is a fair way, giving each flow a small amount of processing at a time. This can lead to extended latencies for each flow. The overall ability to process flows is not impaired, but it may appear it is as each flow will take longer and longer to process as more and more flows receive processing time. In a subsequent release this fairness will be revisited to try and bias towards flow completion. In the meantime, it may be necessary to limit the number of outstanding flows in the RPC client, by only allowing a certain number of incomplete Future-s as returned from startFlow.

Network bandwidth

In the highest throughput scenarios we see above, node A experiences between 300 and 400Mbit/s outbound network traffic. Inbound is a little less, since under normal circumstances flow checkpoint traffic is write-only.