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
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
|
Return-Path: <fireduck@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A10927AD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:57:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com (mail-wi0-f175.google.com
[209.85.212.175])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95C5E14F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:57:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so38999677wib.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=WlAstQyOHA7iY5BVgwqdSG0ciTaE2TRM+ANUM7vT+wQ=;
b=JcKtSCnJAfsNESqrqRxYnyoZtON3yagCW2Fx14kahSYk6YL+f9jwEKjEesXBBlL2vW
n9gBd9GDmkQa0KcZwzuKZIKbmZfjCWUafdr8CF/jvqnBkyFn8QA6IYeO7fOPBqUMva0M
akTYzz3VYGpbX5HMZCJf31udjmq+sUQL7XgDREKfe+20l8f24vgnE7OHAqSSdpwTEMtP
YDF7w0LRV2AzM3rTEeZhmGHT3p2bbhALlYrnCN7lKLiRBI9AZZYdmehlK4+cEZDldt1z
zk64FI6fsJbyl5nMdhmKU7p5PlR3gr8WDCzJQEBD0yVYYpFdel6PqoeE5Il0k+9VTWX3
4FAQ==
X-Received: by 10.194.246.105 with SMTP id xv9mr19124702wjc.135.1437681468467;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <trinity-c97bc41b-a953-4580-b2d2-ebdda9eb96b2-1437661199263@3capp-mailcom-bs02>
<25607701-D3ED-4D0D-A5B3-C02B727671BF@petertodd.org>
<CAAUq485RqbNpBa6i34H517Oo4+MHkT683inwU-sMX3Y=vBTwqg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAUq485RqbNpBa6i34H517Oo4+MHkT683inwU-sMX3Y=vBTwqg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9zZXBoIEdsZWFzb24g4pGI?= <fireduck@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:57:38 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+ASnrGrBr6-QGaMx6j8aGZc+q+W6WpGy3okJRMa+TwHsnwxYg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcel Jamin <marcel@jamin.net>, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3a5363a703d051b904d42
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: slurms--- via bitcoin-dev <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: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:57:50 -0000
--001a11c3a5363a703d051b904d42
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
That is how I read it as well.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:56 PM Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> He measured the upload capacity of the peers by downloading from them, or
> am I being dumb? :)
>
>
> 2015-07-23 18:05 GMT+02:00 Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23 July 2015 10:19:59 GMT-04:00, slurms--- via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >This does not support the theory that the network has the available
>> >bandwidth for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of
>> >nodes would fail to upload a 20MB block to a single peer in under 20
>> >seconds (referencing a number quoted by Gavin). If the bar for
>> >suitability is placed at taking only 1% of the block time (6 seconds)
>> >to upload one block to one peer, then 69% of the network fails for 20MB
>> >blocks. For comparison, only 10% fail this metric for 1MB blocks.
>>
>> Note how due to bandwidth being generally asymetric your findings are
>> probably optimistic - you've measured download capacity. On top of that
>> upload is further reduced by the fact that multiple peers at once need to
>> be sent blocks for reliability.
>>
>> Secondly you're measuring a network that isn't under attack - we need
>> significant additional margin to resist attack as performance is
>> consensus-critical.
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>> iQE9BAEBCAAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJVsRCj
>> AAoJEMCF8hzn9Lnc47AIAIQbznavjd2Rbqxeq5a3GLqeYoI4BZIQYqfWky+6OQtq
>> yGRKaqPtGuES5y9L0k7efivT385mOl87PWnWMy61xxZ9FJgoS+YHkEx8K4tfgfA2
>> yLOKzeFSar2ROCcjHYyPWa2XXjRbNmiLzfNuQyIBArg/Ch9//iXUUM+GG0mChF5k
>> nUxLstXgXDNh5H8xkHeLi4lEbt9HFiwcZnT1Tzeo2dvVTujrtyNb/zEhNZScMXDc
>> UOlT8rBLxzHlytKdXt1GNKIq0feTRJNbreBh7/EB4nYTT54CItaaVXul0LdHd5/2
>> kgKtdbUdeyaRUKrKcvxiuIwclyoOuRQp0DZThsB262o=
>> =tBUM
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--001a11c3a5363a703d051b904d42
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">That is how I read it as well.<div><br></div></div><br><di=
v class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:56 PM M=
arcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo=
undation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br></div=
><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1=
px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">He measured the upload cap=
acity of the peers by downloading from them, or am I being dumb? :)</div><d=
iv dir=3D"ltr"><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_=
quote">2015-07-23 18:05 GMT+02:00 Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"l=
tr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"=
_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span>:<br><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc sol=
id;padding-left:1ex">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA256<br>
<span><br>
<br>
<br>
On 23 July 2015 10:19:59 GMT-04:00, slurms--- via bitcoin-dev <<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin=
-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>This does not support the theory that the network has the available<br>
>bandwidth for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of<br>
>nodes would fail to upload a 20MB block to a single peer in under 20<br=
>
>seconds (referencing a number quoted by Gavin). If the bar for<br>
>suitability is placed at taking only 1% of the block time (6 seconds)<b=
r>
>to upload one block to one peer, then 69% of the network fails for 20MB=
<br>
>blocks. For comparison, only 10% fail this metric for 1MB blocks.<br>
<br>
</span>Note how due to bandwidth being generally asymetric your findings ar=
e probably optimistic - you've measured download capacity. On top of th=
at upload is further reduced by the fact that multiple peers at once need t=
o be sent blocks for reliability.<br>
<br>
Secondly you're measuring a network that isn't under attack - we ne=
ed significant additional margin to resist attack as performance is consens=
us-critical.<br>
<br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
<br>
iQE9BAEBCAAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJVsRCj<br>
AAoJEMCF8hzn9Lnc47AIAIQbznavjd2Rbqxeq5a3GLqeYoI4BZIQYqfWky+6OQtq<br>
yGRKaqPtGuES5y9L0k7efivT385mOl87PWnWMy61xxZ9FJgoS+YHkEx8K4tfgfA2<br>
yLOKzeFSar2ROCcjHYyPWa2XXjRbNmiLzfNuQyIBArg/Ch9//iXUUM+GG0mChF5k<br>
nUxLstXgXDNh5H8xkHeLi4lEbt9HFiwcZnT1Tzeo2dvVTujrtyNb/zEhNZScMXDc<br>
UOlT8rBLxzHlytKdXt1GNKIq0feTRJNbreBh7/EB4nYTT54CItaaVXul0LdHd5/2<br>
kgKtdbUdeyaRUKrKcvxiuIwclyoOuRQp0DZThsB262o=3D<br>
=3DtBUM<br>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
<div><div><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
--001a11c3a5363a703d051b904d42--
|
