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
|
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 <jgarzik@bitpay.com>) id 1UiUxT-0001JM-Sv
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 31 May 2013 19:25:51 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
designates 209.85.128.44 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.128.44; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
helo=mail-qe0-f44.google.com;
Received: from mail-qe0-f44.google.com ([209.85.128.44])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UiUxR-0006mv-Vv
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 31 May 2013 19:25:51 +0000
Received: by mail-qe0-f44.google.com with SMTP id 6so1174279qeb.31
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 31 May 2013 12:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=google.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state;
bh=OyJS+4e2P1xdKO7lFHdaubCpAfnn1lIc2ZZfmeXpWR4=;
b=J1VU+9HAhzl8h2JTAMeOzM0xnulBbagQl9dngoLLy/8312bCSC+RKDNIPfo2wW2Crb
qPEHKWQ6Vtl3LiiA0bUllOHMCZeo9HK+rcu1o6HDnY54pMwirBjRKLI+CFO7uHkz4Gdt
DDOUUdKYIEvo66rXpRVjRY2upzC+2FSrSZP9sSLFDu/PBWkXnv2e0swgRtycKJCRqcHm
AlXofqPc6C/bsKcsEex4RzE8vXlBZqzj/M3u8ay6hcsBI5jbmC0ZWSqxjUpEBEPhNLz2
OOa5W7aax1saJZ2D3xHCe6Um1DYmf6aMeXyA1VfiPWw0QrfPiL6m3Ppz0qEq8J6BQiEK
4iog==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.229.172.10 with SMTP id j10mr4125514qcz.27.1370028344384;
Fri, 31 May 2013 12:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.2.102 with HTTP; Fri, 31 May 2013 12:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAH2=CKxBX6BcLS+CSKxZstut+uhHPQUY7HnLHSoMjZACgd4v1g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH2=CKzW41TYbX6c1F8oknA_LttOaA8vmDPmojuowXgEADY61g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFHuXuZaSNkUUX8o_k=wSf5MeQ3tAj6yD8DJuLwbyA0C3xRQuQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAH2=CKxBX6BcLS+CSKxZstut+uhHPQUY7HnLHSoMjZACgd4v1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 15:25:44 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0M+EExHNMoQ7K3u8R6KHF-sZLbGcEoREyuZzwuvrn1zgQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Rune_Kj=E6r_Svendsen?= <runesvend@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlzzxFNpysUb9I26gBhdqWS2vvnBZ+7y4DpiwMDFo8G2yL4Qc2eXLilp4Ft4pdCC0P3l7P2
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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: 1UiUxR-0006mv-Vv
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Implementing batch processing for
-blocknotify
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: Fri, 31 May 2013 19:25:52 -0000
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Rune Kj=E6r Svendsen <runesvend@gmail.com>=
wrote:
> I've thought about this as well. It just seems somewhat clunky to me. I'd
> really prefer having bitcoind put out messages in batches, if it's doable=
,
> that is.
>
> I'd run into a lot of concurrency issues, as far as I can see, where I ca=
n't
> be sure that the queue isn't written to while, for example, it is opened =
by
> the program that needs to process the queue items.
>
> What if a disk operation takes a long time to finish, and a two queue
> operations want to add to the queue simultaneously? This really brings
> forward all the horrors of concurrent programming.
This is not a compelling need to update bitcoind for this.
The vast majority of systems are currently capable of processing a
block, before another block arrives.
As for parallel processing, your "what if" has been a solved problem
for decade(s) now.
--=20
Jeff Garzik
Senior Software Engineer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
|
