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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jtimon@monetize.io>) id 1WaoyG-0002Fh-AS
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:15:28 +0000
Received: from mail-la0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WaoyC-00075l-Q1
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:15:28 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id ec20so548393lab.39
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=g/wB/Dz7o7J17uipUo0IHdT+tHrin3xL0bGW/0/ZvPc=;
b=K1/FrEYh0rez3dQ+uYALuoOS9ZWKftROKuTa34r490oOqPGTmbl+JwZdcuMClqnzgQ
5Wd+aWMXTqyRLPGiSKcaXhJNzDBy3lxrthgCZKFi3fNT2TcSJnRrsFd1406ehra35sPF
myclnjx5DHJonhNtS554Cb3UoDLq7ELykfqG7uFwg/mX9jplRMefclZt6XQL8+M3CYhG
HVqxuFjR8vRkfNpf3zvATm+4xX1upNm7MpYk5Y506Q2itc1o6vGrmlgad0ek8do7C2eI
qDDytKuCZMM6X1a1DYS5GBC9o7ubVrd43h+oicia5g1GDhQ0N44RHRNjCycVEQ5bnkYB
dUjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQndmtjk7keZ5o/Fw6Bj44cfnnDiE79Cc/w/YYttOf0adZsE7cEWQZXDMgOqRCom8mqgbkKr
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.85.6 with SMTP id d6mr7550413lbz.8.1397750985900; Thu,
17 Apr 2014 09:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.60.196 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [85.53.138.195]
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP3s9SpBWxLYMvF5cLK4UeKS2SdKOLpNr40NKGoAzh=3nw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC1+kJMrpx0tyE8d0wkwjBthhSPMCdr=9LrJHQFTF4G1vg4MAg@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T1HGwozy8pY+iStGZPmjenu0RQBVdtOy5ibiWG0BM4mZw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAC1+kJPvzxsSDg3joraZbv_r1RroK9d6-v9O_15g6S7B46TwQg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP3s9SpBWxLYMvF5cLK4UeKS2SdKOLpNr40NKGoAzh=3nw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:09:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC1+kJMxjNReSMxm=vDB-iYyXTqBvXq5_aw0Z3onds0zF-Oq=w@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= <jtimon@monetize.io>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1WaoyC-00075l-Q1
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Timed testing
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:15:28 -0000
On 4/17/14, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>>
>> 2) If I wanted to measure validation performance, to get the number of
>> peak tps that could be processed without taking block sides or network
>> latency into account, how would I do that? Has anybody tried this
>> before?
>
>
> You can just reindex/replay the chain. It's been done many times.
Yes, thank you. I guess that's what everybody is doing to measure
validation performance.
So I guess the timedtest mode doesn't make much sense, at most only as
the blocktime parameter defaulting to zero. If bool
MineBlocksOnDemand() gets refactored out of ChainParams into a
parameter (maybe just use genproclimit ?), you can have the periodic
block generation and the generation on demand reusing the same regtest
mode.
So it seems a new mode only makes sense if the -private mode makes
sense, which in turn only makes sense to include in bitcoind if it's
useful enough for the network attack simulations, which remains the
open question.
|
