Docs: Node comparison report

[sudo-shashank]

Summary of changes

Changes introduced in this pull request:

Reference issue to close (if applicable)

Closes #5197

Other information and links

Change checklist

• I have performed a self-review of my own code,
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation. All new code adheres to the team's documentation standards,
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works (if possible),
• I have made sure the CHANGELOG is up-to-date. All user-facing changes should be reflected in this document.

Outside contributions

• I have read and agree to the CONTRIBUTING document.
• I have read and agree to the AI Policy document. I understand that failure to comply with the guidelines will lead to rejection of the pull request.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation

  • Added a Node comparison report covering Forest and Lotus performance across RPC latency, resource usage, concurrency, and snapshot exports.
  • Included detailed metrics, key takeaways, and a link to the related monitoring dashboard.

• Chores

  • Pinned the project’s package manager and version for more consistent development environments.

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Draft detected.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Repository UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 61d0c47e-2058-4d64-a946-a6dce4ff8208

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

• ✅ Review completed - (🔄 Check again to review again)

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch shashank/node-comparison-report

✨ Simplify code

• Create PR with simplified code
• Commit simplified code in branch shashank/node-comparison-report

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 2

Caution

Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.

⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)

docs/docs/users/reports/node_comparison.md (1)

1-132: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick win

Run Prettier before merging.

Docs Check / Check currently fails because this file is not formatted according to Prettier. Run Prettier with --write, then rerun the documentation checks.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@docs/docs/users/reports/node_comparison.md` around lines 1 - 132, Format the
Node Comparison documentation with Prettier using write mode, then rerun the
documentation checks and ensure the file passes without formatting errors.

Source: Pipeline failures

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In `@docs/docs/users/reports/node_comparison.md`:
- Around line 121-123: Update the snapshot compression note to distinguish Lotus
export output in this benchmark from Lotus snapshots generally. Remove the claim
that Lotus snapshots are uncompressed, and align the wording with
snapshot_service.md by stating that snapshots are zstd-compressed and readable
by both Forest and Lotus.
- Line 11: Update the version references in the node comparison documentation so
the environment versions and snapshot benchmark versions are aligned, or
explicitly label the snapshot figures as a separate historical benchmark with
Forest 0.33.6 and Lotus 1.36.0. Ensure the 7–13x conclusion clearly refers to
the correct releases.

---

Outside diff comments:
In `@docs/docs/users/reports/node_comparison.md`:
- Around line 1-132: Format the Node Comparison documentation with Prettier
using write mode, then rerun the documentation checks and ensure the file passes
without formatting errors.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

• Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
• Create a new PR with the fixes

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Repository UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 66f9a67b-da56-4636-9488-086ade311903

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 17c49db and fa62a21.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (16)

• docs/static/img/reports/node_comparison/average-amortized-latency.png is excluded by !**/*.png
• docs/static/img/reports/node_comparison/average-batch-size.png is excluded by !**/*.png
• docs/static/img/reports/node_comparison/build-info.png is excluded by !**/*.png
• docs/static/img/reports/node_comparison/cpu.png is excluded by !**/*.png
• docs/static/img/reports/node_comparison/in-flight-requests.png is excluded by !**/*.png
• docs/static/img/reports/node_comparison/memory.png is excluded by !**/*.png
• docs/static/img/reports/node_comparison/p50-amortized-latency.png is excluded by !**/*.png
• docs/static/img/reports/node_comparison/p50-per-flow-latency.png is excluded by !**/*.png
• docs/static/img/reports/node_comparison/p95-amortized-latency.png is excluded by !**/*.png
• docs/static/img/reports/node_comparison/p95-per-flow-latency.png is excluded by !**/*.png
• docs/static/img/reports/node_comparison/p99-amortized-latency.png is excluded by !**/*.png
• docs/static/img/reports/node_comparison/p99-per-flow-latency.png is excluded by !**/*.png
• docs/static/img/reports/node_comparison/request-count-batch-aware.png is excluded by !**/*.png
• docs/static/img/reports/node_comparison/request-count-http.png is excluded by !**/*.png
• docs/static/img/reports/node_comparison/snapshot-export-comparison.png is excluded by !**/*.png
• docs/static/img/reports/node_comparison/wall-time-per-http-request.png is excluded by !**/*.png

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• docs/docs/users/reports/node_comparison.md
• package.json

🔗 Linked repositories identified

CodeRabbit considers these linked repositories for cross-repo context during reviews:

• filecoin-project/lotus (manual)

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 2

♻️ Duplicate comments (1)

docs/docs/users/reports/node_comparison.md (1)

120-129: 🗄️ Data Integrity & Integration | 🟠 Major

Scope the snapshot compression claim to the measured export.

“Lotus snapshots are also not compressed” overgeneralizes the benchmark. State whether each measured export is compressed or uncompressed, and avoid presenting the disk-space difference as an intrinsic Lotus-versus-Forest property. If this benchmark measured uncompressed Lotus export output, say so explicitly.

This follows the linked Lotus findings that compressed CAR inputs are supported.

Also applies to: 136-136

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@docs/docs/users/reports/node_comparison.md` around lines 120 - 129, Update
the note in the snapshot comparison to explicitly state that the measured Lotus
exports produced uncompressed output, and clarify that the disk-space difference
applies only to this benchmark rather than being an intrinsic implementation
property. Retain the distinction that Forest compresses snapshots during export
and that both implementations can consume compressed snapshots.

Source: Linked repositories

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In `@docs/docs/users/reports/node_comparison.md`:
- Line 8: Expand the node comparison report beyond performance, resource usage,
and snapshots by adding a compact comparison section covering implementation
language, supported features, and other defining properties requested by issue
`#5197`. Alternatively, explicitly narrow the report’s stated scope to exclude
those comparisons.
- Line 120: Update the snapshot benchmark paragraph and its associated table to
align the cited Lotus and Forest versions with the environment versions, or
explicitly label the results as historical benchmarks. Ensure the “7–13x”
performance takeaway preserves and clearly attributes the actual benchmark
versions, including the matching references around the repeated section.

---

Duplicate comments:
In `@docs/docs/users/reports/node_comparison.md`:
- Around line 120-129: Update the note in the snapshot comparison to explicitly
state that the measured Lotus exports produced uncompressed output, and clarify
that the disk-space difference applies only to this benchmark rather than being
an intrinsic implementation property. Retain the distinction that Forest
compresses snapshots during export and that both implementations can consume
compressed snapshots.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

• Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
• Create a new PR with the fixes

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Repository UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 47426223-1377-42db-982b-f94b7b6496cd

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between fa62a21 and 0f80b99.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

• docs/static/img/reports/node_comparison/p50-per-flow-latency.png is excluded by !**/*.png

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/docs/users/reports/node_comparison.md

🔗 Linked repositories identified

CodeRabbit considers these linked repositories for cross-repo context during reviews:

• filecoin-project/lotus (manual)