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
|
Return-Path: <slurms@gmx.us>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 901AB82D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 24 Jul 2015 03:19:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEC97147
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 24 Jul 2015 03:19:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [46.101.177.144] by 3capp-mailcom-bs10.server.lan (via HTTP);
Fri, 24 Jul 2015 05:19:35 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <trinity-fedcdb1a-27cc-44cc-9638-be520331e59f-1437707974947@3capp-mailcom-bs10>
From: "Slurms MacKenzie" <slurms@gmx.us>
To: lf-lists@mattcorallo.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 05:19:35 +0200
Importance: normal
Sensitivity: Normal
In-Reply-To: <55B1A763.3000000@mattcorallo.com>
References: <trinity-c97bc41b-a953-4580-b2d2-ebdda9eb96b2-1437661199263@3capp-mailcom-bs02>,
<55B1A763.3000000@mattcorallo.com>
X-UI-Message-Type: mail
X-Priority: 3
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:rJJSjsNw9AJFUQEbQshkitkcSybMgQvtcA4tw5u6ujC
Siec8xf9udsza3SRTrasvQzX0W34lKQ+aa+vKGIiL6H8Fxho9d
YcGsRUs+vaMLnS7BwSTH/gTWloylVJ1LaDh42USGd4LAt6Q+9f
EYFTmKWPAQbyQX8AQIv0NT2SK/LdOyRt5hRkLJqUJTDXNmTfC/
XWTd0Z6XBO6/ejqVuU1nmjvX+YMhFzWIfnFt9PPcdfKJUkg3TL
7gWEqGvw3F+EgH3D2P+B9UtUTPvSFpd6pnalvbm1jOOuXAKBOl
Pw/8aDjjyFLUKM2G9P8sF5hEcD+
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:xJc4tkthWXw=:UOcu8N8+KRJbMAB+VFMY4t
FJrXQSydHNBAWx9y7NBx+mEYFJ0HlA3gpW1sixdwZgOOvtemappwFyTMXxYppT9u7g8y8n8OC
mZUKGS1JeIwmoMfmOI67ApfnoQf24PEA2RkYlmnmm2ZAsFNbTgCmZu35lxsH73mVzVxMZGzBT
XdOsMWwjdaN0Gid4jJBSqqh0TR/uNgNEl/xaSH/BPwwhueysosk464grPeYfTvDQcAycMJXbh
YwvykbheaNfkENo8K7Zjs7GCeYil6pUPy5tetWfRuYykJigMPDDfGqt5mhcVEFqOk32axntRd
k9VDzDtQLxy1SGEMK3+trtCYXOl0PuSIkot37PrsLrItKM/oEvbzUtqKnfM6foGUKr8myeEdN
biANnONdNrevkS874yvBtlMsTip9XgiApgs6n+tiqmfM4Kba/4K9WMK0i25bPDKbVGnpYI/dt
tuiLx95GOA==
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Node Speed Test
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 03:19:38 -0000
Yes that is completely doable for the next crawl, however I am not sure how much that reflects the behavior bitcoind would see when making connections. Nodes do not make any attempt to sync with close peers, which is an undesirable property if you are attempting to be sybil resistant. With some quick playing around it seems that you do get the expected speedup with close proximity, but it's not a particularly huge difference at present. I'll keep working on it and see where I get.
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 at 4:48 AM
> From: "Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Node Speed Test
>
> You may see much better throughput if you run a few servers around the
> globe and test based on closest-by-geoip. TCP throughput is rather
> significantly effected by latency, though I'm not really sure what you
> should be testing here, ideally.
|
