summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/a0/052d81eb2c1a7b11fd3a27bfd4db3e1dff14f3
blob: 1df699293dbc9611717ed353e2631b1869f8eeb6 (plain)
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
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1QockR-0001d6-Fx
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:48:39 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.216.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.216.47; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-qw0-f47.google.com; 
Received: from mail-qw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.216.47])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1QockQ-00082M-Uz
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:48:39 +0000
Received: by qwh5 with SMTP id 5so713218qwh.34
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 03 Aug 2011 07:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.27.3 with SMTP id g3mr3787797qcc.178.1312382913547; Wed,
	03 Aug 2011 07:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.3.141 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0DDkeuDwNZA+WV3LGXp0Q31ZJeJAWiV=6Xm+f=ZusrhQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP1-BaNmKhSPXSe2sjH0-DPm62_=OQ_S6aCT3-nLdFLLGA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJ1JLtuRhqwcCWjv+H2XUjsX-Za9ZkSkOsH3t=JaUu1581RGUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP2Cr1mVcj3CQQNx6BeWSb=hzxawva2Lz=sAbjx4AwYdmw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJ1JLttf+h5J8ehmx1j5P1GiGYAUiLN=fGjSV_dLoy72XQohfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPiTikUc5At5r8XH_5paQ2odx_bib0FGO4OqhGCeQEZ_VRkz0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP0DDkeuDwNZA+WV3LGXp0Q31ZJeJAWiV=6Xm+f=ZusrhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:48:33 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQc9a_-Qnv666c4gdkC0+jjk1QwAY8gMQv9Ts74LLaYbg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
	(gmaxwell[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
X-Headers-End: 1QockQ-00082M-Uz
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] DNS seeds returning gone peers
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: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:48:39 -0000

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>> There's a bigger problem here honestly. The p2p network is just starved
>> for connectable slots.
>
> Suggestions:
> - massively increasing all the anti-DoS limits in 0.4, so far they've caused
> a lot more damage than they solved.

You can't "massively increase" the number of available connection
slots without risking running nodes on lower memory systems (e.g. VMs)
out of memory.

Moreover, 125 slots should be more than enough.  We need to figure out
why it isn't.