Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WTAW2-0007Jy-Kp for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:38:42 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.47; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f47.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f47.google.com ([209.85.219.47]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WTAW1-0001IV-MF for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:38:42 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id i11so4339202oag.6 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 06:38:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.146.201 with SMTP id te9mr1526135oeb.38.1395927516331; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 06:38:36 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.71.231 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 06:38:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <533427EA.5010300@gmx.de> References: <53340426.4040208@gmx.de> <533427EA.5010300@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:38:36 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: CZCaSE3WXpINd7jwb1ZTVztjaj8 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Thomas Voegtlin Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d524ebe458704f596b378 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1WTAW1-0001IV-MF Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New BIP32 structure X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:38:42 -0000 --047d7b5d524ebe458704f596b378 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > To be honest, I have not carried out a comprehensive examination of > server performance. What I can see is that Electrum servers are often > slowed down when a wallet with a large number (thousands) of addresses > shows up, and this is caused by disk seeks (especially on my slow VPS). > Yes that sounds more like what I expected. > In terms of bandwidth, I am referring to my Android version of Electrum. > When it runs on a 3G connection, it sometimes takes up to 1 minute to > synchronize (with a wallet that has hundreds of addresses). However, I > have not checked if this was caused by addresses or block headers. > An address is 160 bits. (1000 * 160) / 8 / 1024 = 19.5 kilobytes of data which 3G should be able to transfer in <1 second easily. Of course the encoding may not be optimal. But if it is, I suspect the issue is elsewhere. --047d7b5d524ebe458704f596b378 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To be honest, I have not carried out a comprehensive examin= ation of
server performance. What I can see is that Electrum servers are often
slowed down when a wallet with a large number (thousands) of addresses
shows up, and this is caused by disk seeks (especially on my slow VPS).
=

Yes that sounds more like what I expected.=
=C2=A0
In terms of bandwidth, I am referring to my Android version of Electrum. When it runs on a 3G connection, it sometimes takes up to 1 minute to
synchronize (with a wallet that has hundreds of addresses). However, I
have not checked if this was caused by addresses or block headers.

An address is 160 bits.=C2=A0(1000 * 160) / 8 /= 1024 =3D 19.5 kilobytes of data which 3G should be able to transfer in <= ;1 second easily. Of course the encoding may not be optimal. But if it is, = I suspect the issue is elsewhere.
--047d7b5d524ebe458704f596b378--