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
|
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 <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1QWWjP-0000Ff-CC
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:44:47 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.47; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-vw0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-vw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.212.47])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1QWWjO-0005y0-Ju
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:44:47 +0000
Received: by vws2 with SMTP id 2so6880356vws.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.75.129 with SMTP id c1mr2177975vdw.202.1308069881038; Tue,
14 Jun 2011 09:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.52.155.38 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:44:41 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: pf293-qQj_mFt2OjVKDK5ZKBLlA
Message-ID: <BANLkTinuEayfr5S9NEcW+cTLpv2r8iwRgDXYniOAHgQ43zwGqQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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 freemail (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
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
0.0 RFC_ABUSE_POST Both abuse and postmaster missing on sender domain
0.0 T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL
X-Headers-End: 1QWWjO-0005y0-Ju
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Bumping up against flood control limits again?
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: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:44:47 -0000
Block sizes have started to get quite large once again. Whilst testing
chain download today I was disconnected due to going over the 10mb
flood control limit. Infuriatingly, I can't reproduce this reliably.
But at 500 blocks an average of 20kb per block will cause this. As we
can see from the block explorer, the average is probably quite close
to that.
The flood control seems like a pretty serious scalability limitation.
I can see a few solutions. One is to raise the limit again. Another is
to raise the limit and simultaneously lower the batch size. 500 blocks
in one message means very large messages no matter how big the flood
control limit is. Going down to 100 or even 50 would hurt chain
download speed quite a bit in high latency environments, but chain
download is already a serious bottleneck.
Thoughts?
|
