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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <grarpamp@gmail.com>) id 1SudaB-0007gg-5D
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 27 Jul 2012 05:59:27 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.175; envelope-from=grarpamp@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1SudaA-0003Vc-EX
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 27 Jul 2012 05:59:27 +0000
Received: by wibhm2 with SMTP id hm2so5329707wib.10
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 26 Jul 2012 22:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.93.68 with SMTP id cs4mr19007628wib.14.1343368760335; Thu,
26 Jul 2012 22:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.78.131 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 22:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQmQ6f1_025QgJsG4aEyH4yHwk-2aWUUY+2FPs7-Tpvvg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD2Ti29dqCYoOMcX0zcOQnpLGCxnCjYHHqMzyyq+hvcVQ2c7nQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgTHrWdXHbX8oiLgnrhdC+yxL4QyPd7S4iB8RMNip_sUGg@mail.gmail.com>
<A428177D-62AD-4712-9053-47B7ED5DBC84@mac.com>
<CAD2Ti2-3sR_qusfmiStb8pzaxaB8DsPaK8a2+LWm_uL+DwvzeA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgREzk_dU0ie+YvDdRwKcTk6tk_i=a2Bb74w9uF=EwYhGA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAD2Ti2_Pz9-SsHP49+6MKnM0er9zdAaFKDQaOgqDpju1_igd_g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAD2Ti28snGOZn9mCSALZ341TNCex23zxKHCKYztnMK3cF=jaTQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgQmQ6f1_025QgJsG4aEyH4yHwk-2aWUUY+2FPs7-Tpvvg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 01:59:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD2Ti29LR+9=uO+LnrcsTYGSFW9S1FWuCLtoU-KwKkNmiVrnGQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
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
(grarpamp[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
0.6 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1SudaA-0003Vc-EX
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues
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, 27 Jul 2012 05:59:27 -0000
> I now have an 1.8 ghz p3 celeron (128k cache) which should be
> substantially slower than your machine, running vintage 2.6.20 linux.
> Unfortunately I forgot to turn on timestamp logging so I don't know
> how long it took to sync the chain, but it was less than two days as
> that was the span between when I checked on it. It's staying current
Well, are you running bitcoin on, say, an FS with sha256 integrity
trees for all bits and AES-128-XTS/CBC disk encryption?
If not, we're not comparing the same apples, let alone the same OS.
> Again, I encourage you to investigate your software configuration.
Someone suggested I investigate turning off the above features.
Since I'd find their loss undesirable [1], and there's not much to be
tuned there anyways, I've given up and am investigating what more
GHz and cores will do.
[1] Keeping data both intact and private is a good thing. Does your
checkbook deserve any less?
|
