Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WXZBv-0001jV-Fc for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 16:48:07 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.52 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.52; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f52.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f52.google.com ([209.85.219.52]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WXZBu-0004U1-Ku for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 16:48:07 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id l6so1342270oag.11 for ; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 09:48:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.50.163 with SMTP id d3mr4056200oeo.51.1396975681292; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 09:48:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.120.66 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 09:48:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:48:01 +0200 Message-ID: From: Wladimir To: Angel Leon Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c309da3e50fc04f68abf00 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 (laanwj[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 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: 1WXZBu-0004U1-Ku Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] have there been complains about network congestion? (router crashes, slow internet when running Bitcoin nodes) 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: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 16:48:07 -0000 --001a11c309da3e50fc04f68abf00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Angel Leon wrote: > I was wondering if the level of traffic a Bitcoin node gets is or will be > so high that you have heard/will hear complains like the following: > > > 1. a home router that crashes or slows down when its NAT pin-hole > table overflows, triggered by many TCP connections. > > The default maximum amount of connections is 125, which only happens if you have a stable node that accepts incoming connections. The maximum number of outgoing connections is always 8. Should be no problem even for cheapass routers. > 1. a home router that crashes or slows down by UDP traffic > > N/A - We don't use UDP > 1. a home DSL or cable modem having its send buffer filled up by > outgoing data, and the buffer fits seconds worth of bytes. This adds > seconds of delay on interactive traffic. For a web site that needs 10 round > trips to load this may mean 10s of seconds of delay to load compared to > without bittorrent. Skype or other delay sensitive applications would be > affected even more. > > Filling up the send buffer is certainly possible. Adding throttling wouldn't be horribly hard, but this is postponed until parallel block download is implemented, so that other peers will not get stuck on your throttled node. > > 1. > > I was wondering if we have or expect to have these issues in the future, > perhaps uTP could help greatly the performance of the entire network at > some point. > There is enough lower-hanging fruit left. If you're interested in speeding up the performance I think it's important to start with benchmarking and analysis to find out where the pain points are. Wladimir --001a11c309da3e50fc04f68abf00 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Angel Leon <gubatron@gmail.com> wrote:
I was wondering if the= level of traffic a Bitcoin node gets is or will be so high that you have h= eard/will hear complains like the following:

  1. a home ro= uter that crashes or slows down when its NAT pin-hole table overflows, trig= gered by many TCP connections.

The default maximum amount of connections is 125, which only hap= pens if you have a stable node that accepts incoming connections. The maxim= um number of outgoing connections is always 8.
Should be no p= roblem even for cheapass routers.

  1. a home router that crashes or slows down by UDP traffic
N/A - We don't use UDP

  1. a home DSL or cable modem having its se= nd buffer filled up by outgoing data, and the buffer fits seconds worth of = bytes. This adds seconds of delay on interactive traffic. For a web site th= at needs 10 round trips to load this may mean 10s of seconds of delay to lo= ad compared to without bittorrent. Skype or other delay sensitive applicati= ons would be affected even more.
Filling up the send buffer is certa= inly possible.
Adding throttling wouldn't be horribly har= d, but this is postponed until parallel block download is implemented, so t= hat other peers will not get stuck on your throttled node.
I was wondering if we have or = expect to have these issues in the future, perhaps uTP could help greatly t= he performance of the entire network at some point.

There is enough l= ower-hanging fruit left.

If you're interested in spee= ding up the performance I think it's important to start with benchmarki= ng and analysis to find out where the pain points are.
=C2=A0
Wladimir

--001a11c309da3e50fc04f68abf00--