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
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64F414A7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:05:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail148101.authsmtp.com (outmail148101.authsmtp.com
[62.13.148.101])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEEA6215
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:05:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
by punt18.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t6NG5MHR047432;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:05:22 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [25.247.241.57] ([72.143.231.246]) (authenticated bits=0)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t6NG5F2d047820
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:05:18 +0100 (BST)
In-Reply-To: <trinity-c97bc41b-a953-4580-b2d2-ebdda9eb96b2-1437661199263@3capp-mailcom-bs02>
References: <trinity-c97bc41b-a953-4580-b2d2-ebdda9eb96b2-1437661199263@3capp-mailcom-bs02>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=UTF-8
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:05:11 +0000
To: slurms@gmx.us,
slurms--- via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Message-ID: <25607701-D3ED-4D0D-A5B3-C02B727671BF@petertodd.org>
X-Server-Quench: 9e67d4cf-3154-11e5-b397-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdAEUEkAYAgsB AmMbWlNeUFh7W2M7 bAhPbAFefEhNXhto
VE5WRlRXCwQmRRp/ cRtoUE1ycwJOen4+ bUNkWj5SCUJ9IUIu
FFNXFGgCeGZhPWUC AkNRcB5UcAFPdx8U a1UrBXRDAzANdhEy
HhM4ODE3eDlSNhEd aAARJlUTRw4tGTIx DysaEDgjVXEIXDlb
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 72.143.231.246/465
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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
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 16:05:25 -0000
-----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-----
|
