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
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <imichaelmiers@gmail.com>) id 1TJTCM-0005SF-F4
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:57:30 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.216.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.216.175; envelope-from=imichaelmiers@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qc0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-qc0-f175.google.com ([209.85.216.175])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1TJTCL-0005bL-Pq
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:57:30 +0000
Received: by qcsj3 with SMTP id j3so3746043qcs.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.138.143 with SMTP id a15mr8607948qau.64.1349287044435;
Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: imichaelmiers@gmail.com
Received: by 10.49.30.40 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 10:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+8xBpdZDznkyWXn8AxdUDk0CJ0b2m1qpTgVjtPbs0ge+ODCSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEC9zAbHO9y7Go4FhZFyOCKdm1js_eKCoz7iaOCh1Wu=B9OASw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEC9zAYrMHHEyyTx1QVHoGSJU3fFypB0Hx4K-VFoUn0hp4Z7JA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEC9zAbkWWcn5eRHLh6u+zyGu92E1Yq-9CQVPqE_6-QwMVs=4Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+8xBpdZDznkyWXn8AxdUDk0CJ0b2m1qpTgVjtPbs0ge+ODCSg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ian Miers <imiers1@jhu.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 13:57:04 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Z0dgkRUYo4LjEFLbgMkpQDeIF2Q
Message-ID: <CAEC9zAZR7xOUEJZz0f-Of0HTVAcL8uCw3tcR1s66Hg_kZbczRg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3074d77cfbcd9c04cb2b5edb
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
(imichaelmiers[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: 1TJTCL-0005bL-Pq
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] performance testing for bitcoin
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: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:57:30 -0000
--20cf3074d77cfbcd9c04cb2b5edb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Script evaluation performance was what I was primarily concerned with. I'm
fooling around with adding some new instruction types.
The tricky part is that to test how that effects performance, you need to
be able to intersperse transactions with the new instructions with existing
ones. For accuracy, you'd like your simulated traffic to at least
approximate the real world traffic.
Also, is there any bench-marking / instrumentation in bitcoind ?
Ian
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Ian Miers <imiers1@jhu.edu> wrote:
> > Whats the best way to get performance numbers for modifications to
> bitcoin ?
> > Profiling it while running on testnet might work, but that would take a
> > rather long time to get data.
> > Is there anyway to speed this up if we only needed to provide relative
> > performance between tests. (in a sense a fast performance regression
> test).
>
> You have to be specific about what you're measuring, because
> "performance" is vague.
>
> You can measure many aspects of blockchain performance by importing
> blocks via -loadblock=FILE.
>
> Other performance measurements like "how fast does a block relay
> through the network" cannot be as easily measured.
>
> --
> Jeff Garzik
> exMULTI, Inc.
> jgarzik@exmulti.com
>
--20cf3074d77cfbcd9c04cb2b5edb
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Script evaluation performance was what I was=A0primarily=A0concerned with. =
=A0I'm fooling around with adding some new instruction types.<div>The t=
ricky part is that to test how that effects performance, you need to be abl=
e to=A0intersperse=A0transactions=A0with the new instructions with existing=
ones. =A0For accuracy, you'd like your simulated traffic to at least a=
pproximate the real world traffic.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Also, is there any=A0bench-marking=A0/ i=
nstrumentation in bitcoind ?=A0<br>
<div><br></div><div>Ian<br><div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 3, 2=
012 at 1:43 PM, Jeff Garzik <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:jgarzik=
@exmulti.com" target=3D"_blank">jgarzik@exmulti.com</a>></span> wrote:<b=
r><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:=
1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Ian Miers <<a href=3D"mailto:imiers=
1@jhu.edu" target=3D"_blank">imiers1@jhu.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
> Whats the best way to get performance numbers for modifications to bit=
coin ?<br>
> Profiling it while running on testnet might work, but that would take =
a<br>
> rather long time to get data.<br>
> Is there anyway to speed this up =A0if we only needed to provide =A0re=
lative<br>
> performance between tests. (in a sense a fast performance regression t=
est).<br>
<br>
</div>You have to be specific about what you're measuring, because<br>
"performance" is vague.<br>
<br>
You can measure many aspects of blockchain performance by importing<br>
blocks via -loadblock=3DFILE.<br>
<br>
Other performance measurements like "how fast does a block relay<br>
through the network" cannot be as easily measured.<br>
<span><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
Jeff Garzik<br>
exMULTI, Inc.<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:jgarzik@exmulti.com" target=3D"_blank">jgarzik@exmulti.co=
m</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
--20cf3074d77cfbcd9c04cb2b5edb--
|
