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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1Rt0Ck-0006Tg-3I
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:12:14 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.220.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.220.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-vx0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-vx0-f175.google.com ([209.85.220.175])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Rt0Cg-000795-5l
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:12:14 +0000
Received: by vcdn13 with SMTP id n13so2657343vcd.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 02 Feb 2012 09:12:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.67.229 with SMTP id q5mr1547319vdt.14.1328202724706; Thu,
02 Feb 2012 09:12:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.151.200 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 09:12:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSQZ1wv=OXnBnGbKnLTZXbn909umpPBaZDF2g6vy8katA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D55C3D18-8286-44E9-B877-6FCE7C05E980@ceptacle.com>
<CAAS2fgSQZ1wv=OXnBnGbKnLTZXbn909umpPBaZDF2g6vy8katA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 12:12:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgR_r=NpFJJEQ=canx5noUeQDyJPYRJ4D5rzCGC_qLOgEg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-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: 1Rt0Cg-000795-5l
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Announcement: libcoin
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, 02 Feb 2012 17:12:14 -0000
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Michael Gr=C3=B8nager
<gronager@ceptacle.com> > The libcoin/bitcoind client downloads the
entire block chain 3.5 times faster than the bitcoin/bitcoind client.
This is less than 90 minutes on a modern laptop!
I'm guessing that you benchmarked this against the version you forked
from rather than the current reference client?
If so=E2=80=94 I suspect your speedup was almost entirely because you remov=
ed
the secure allocator and as a result fixed the mlock performance bug
[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D56491.0] as a side effect. On
some systems the mlock issue makes a very big difference (on other
systems not so much).
In any case, I finally got libbitcoin built and I'm disappointed to
report that in the same time it takes the reference client to fully
sync, libbitcoin only made it to height 138k (of course, because the
time is mostly spent late in the chain 138k is not very far along=E2=80=94 =
I'm
guessing it's going to take libbitcoin 3x-4x longer all said)
I assume the reason it's actually slower is because it's CPU bound on
ECDSA checks, which are skipped in bitcoin in blocks up to the highest
hardcoded checkpoint. =C2=A0Without that difference I suspect libbitcoin
would be about the same speed=E2=80=94 maybe a little faster because of the
other changes you mentioned (though, e.g. lock profiling shows hardly
any contention during sync).
I don't doubt your rpc performance is a lot better. There is a
longstanding pull request for async rpc for the reference client that
hasn't been merged.
|
