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
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
|
Return-Path: <leo@LeoWandersleb.de>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E25A7411
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:37:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from geekbox.info (geekbox.info [5.9.151.241])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FA4E12E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:37:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (pc-185-201-214-201.cm.vtr.net [201.214.201.185])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128
bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: leo)
by geekbox.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B5A99DE0A43
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:37:15 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <55B11825.90700@LeoWandersleb.de>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:36:53 -0300
From: Leo Wandersleb <leo@LeoWandersleb.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <trinity-c97bc41b-a953-4580-b2d2-ebdda9eb96b2-1437661199263@3capp-mailcom-bs02>
In-Reply-To: <trinity-c97bc41b-a953-4580-b2d2-ebdda9eb96b2-1437661199263@3capp-mailcom-bs02>
OpenPGP: id=FAE4D5168E9EF9F104AA1B2D6B9A1F0CB7C20812
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="0sxK7gNAVdqP3KVcXG3QwVU5sUjNt3so0"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Node Speed Test
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:37:58 -0000
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--0sxK7gNAVdqP3KVcXG3QwVU5sUjNt3so0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thank you a lot for doing this test!
Two questions:
1) A node is typically connected to many nodes that would all in parallel=
download said block. In your test you measured how fast new blocks that
presumably are being uploaded in parallel to all those other nodes are be=
ing
uploaded? Or did you download blocks while those nodes were basically idl=
e?
2) What is your percentage of the very slow connections?
On 07/23/2015 11:19 AM, slurms--- via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On this day, the Bitcoin network was crawled and reachable nodes survey=
ed to find their maximum throughput in order to determine if it can safel=
y support a faster block rate. Specifically this is an attempt to prove o=
r 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 n=
odes 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 conne=
ctions (<30KB/s) timed out in order to run the test at a reasonable rate.=
>
> * The connecting node was in Amsterdam with a 1GB NIC.=20
>
> =20
> 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://p=
astebin.com/raw.php?i=3D6b4NuiVQ
>
>
> This does not support the theory that the network has the available ban=
dwidth for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of nodes wo=
uld fail to upload a 20MB block to a single peer in under 20 seconds (ref=
erencing 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 on=
e peer, then 69% of the network fails for 20MB blocks. For comparison, on=
ly 10% fail this metric for 1MB blocks.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--0sxK7gNAVdqP3KVcXG3QwVU5sUjNt3so0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVsRglAAoJEGuaHwy3wggS6qkIAJh7xucvjgcuXklCr0uUxXr9
WKJRYA3fVarsISVxTSSKFMQb7jg2XX1+j8NIEv2L2hcitajiHj0Nc5oJQEjNyMdh
FPHXlmTgTU69KqugtiYy/SHK1YYvJsBzD+/OI09G3ugoWLGEOh5iD96y8jrIoVwc
sQiWgvkm7fpy2oI/S8WOTinwf+I7qSkNTycQVZvWtaHBFm5BnAMeh7T8964hYRZt
0iZtLfFx5PTpBg/ALhqJN124KDEKijMa17ICRYqLGOp4xjH9UGXPn4H4zH2l82o9
oCcFas5REZYlg6mHjQvPG3x24ieMwn+nI2XcY7W7mYslXyULDAS7em1Ooz9PWBI=
=mg7R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--0sxK7gNAVdqP3KVcXG3QwVU5sUjNt3so0--
|
