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 ) 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 ; 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: References: Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 01:59:20 -0400 Message-ID: From: grarpamp 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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?