On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:19 AM, slurms--- via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> * A random selection of blocks was downloaded from each peer.
If the selection is different for each peer the results will be broken.
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.li
v"
> To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Node Speed Test
>
> You may see much better throughput if you run a few servers around the
> globe and test based on closest-by-geoip. TCP throughput is rather
> significantly effected by latency,
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 09:56:36PM +0200, Marcel Jamin wrote:
> He measured the upload capacity of the peers by downloading from them, or
> am I being dumb? :)
Lol, no, I'm being dumb. :)
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0402fe6fb9ad613c93e12bddfc6ec02a2bd92f002050594d
signature.a
You may see much better throughput if you run a few servers around the
globe and test based on closest-by-geoip. TCP throughput is rather
significantly effected by latency, though I'm not really sure what you
should be testing here, ideally.
On 07/23/15 14:19, slurms--- via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On
That is how I read it as well.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:56 PM Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> He measured the upload capacity of the peers by downloading from them, or
> am I being dumb? :)
>
>
> 2015-07-23 18:05 GMT+02:00 Peter Todd via bitcoin-d
He measured the upload capacity of the peers by downloading from them, or
am I being dumb? :)
2015-07-23 18:05 GMT+02:00 Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
>
>
> On 23 July 2015 10:19:59 GMT-04:00, slurms---
hard to replicate in python-bitcoinlib or bitcoinj though.
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 6:55 PM
> *From:* "Jameson Lopp"
> *To:* slu...@gmx.us
> *Cc:* bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Node Speed Test
> Are you willing to s
ct: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Node Speed Test
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 no
"Leo Wandersleb via bitcoin-dev"
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Node Speed Test
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 yo
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 being
uploaded? Or did you d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 23 July 2015 10:19:59 GMT-04:00, slurms--- via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
>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 bloc
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
Ahh, data... a breath of fresh air...
Can you re-analyze for 8MB blocks? There is no current proposal for 20MB
blocks.
Also, most hashing power is now using Matt Corallo's fast block propagation
network; slow 'block' propagation to merchants/end-users doesn't really
matter (as long as it doesn't
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 inter
14 matches
Mail list logo
