MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <trinity-c97bc41b-a953-4580-b2d2-ebdda9eb96b2-1437661199263@3capp-mailcom-bs02>
References: <trinity-c97bc41b-a953-4580-b2d2-ebdda9eb96b2-1437661199263@3capp-mailcom-bs02>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:55:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CADL_X_dmeyjR2PJN8oLn8EutVCu8Pn_qsP9ATRCYadx3dh4Erg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jameson Lopp <jameson.lopp@gmail.com>
To: slurms@gmx.us
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a8954c4959f051b8ce9b3
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Node Speed Test
Precedence: list

--047d7b3a8954c4959f051b8ce9b3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Are you willing to share the code that you used to run the test?

- Jameson

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:19 AM, slurms--- via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On this day, the Bitcoin network was crawled and reachable nodes surveyed
> to find their maximum throughput in order to determine if it can safely
> support a faster block rate. Specifically this is an attempt to prove or
> disprove the common statement that 1MB blocks were only suitable slower
> internet connections in 2009 when Bitcoin launched, and that connection
> speeds have improved to the point of obviously supporting larger blocks.
>
>
> The testing methodology is as follows:
>
>  * Nodes were randomly selected from a peers.dat, 5% of the reachable
> nodes in the network were contacted.
>
>  * A random selection of blocks was downloaded from each peer.
>
>  * There is some bias towards higher connection speeds, very slow
> connections (<30KB/s) timed out in order to run the test at a reasonable
> rate.
>
>  * The connecting node was in Amsterdam with a 1GB NIC.
>
>
> Results:
>
>  * 37% of connected nodes failed to upload blocks faster than 1MB/s.
>
>  * 16% of connected nodes uploaded blocks faster than 10MB/s.
>
>  * Raw data, one line per connected node, kilobytes per second
> http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=6b4NuiVQ
>
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--047d7b3a8954c4959f051b8ce9b3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Are you willing to share the code that you used to run the=
 test?<div><br></div><div>- Jameson</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><=
br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:19 AM, slurms--- v=
ia bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.li=
nuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<=
/a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On this day, the Bi=
tcoin network was crawled and reachable nodes surveyed to find their maximu=
m throughput in order to determine if it can safely support a faster block =
rate. Specifically this is an attempt to prove or disprove the common state=
ment that 1MB blocks were only suitable slower internet connections in 2009=
 when Bitcoin launched, and that connection speeds have improved to the poi=
nt of obviously supporting larger blocks.<br>
<br>
<br>
The testing methodology is as follows:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0* Nodes were randomly selected from a peers.dat, 5% of the reachable =
nodes in the network were contacted.<br>
<br>
=C2=A0* A random selection of blocks was downloaded from each peer.<br>
<br>
=C2=A0* There is some bias towards higher connection speeds, very slow conn=
ections (&lt;30KB/s) timed out in order to run the test at a reasonable rat=
e.<br>
<br>
=C2=A0* The connecting node was in Amsterdam with a 1GB NIC.<br>
<br>
=C2=A0<br>
Results:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0* 37% of connected nodes failed to upload blocks faster than 1MB/s.<b=
r>
<br>
=C2=A0* 16% of connected nodes uploaded blocks faster than 10MB/s.<br>
<br>
=C2=A0* Raw data, one line per connected node, kilobytes per second <a href=
=3D"http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=3D6b4NuiVQ" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"=
_blank">http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=3D6b4NuiVQ</a><br>
<br>
<br>
This does not support the theory that the network has the available bandwid=
th for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of nodes would fa=
il 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 th=
is metric for 1MB blocks.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">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><br></div>

--047d7b3a8954c4959f051b8ce9b3--