From: Dave Smith <dizzyd@dizzyd•com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net>
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bumping up against flood control limits again?
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:07:59 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BANLkTinFaj+vXD4uOqaA63j9sA2vrq3bbg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinuEayfr5S9NEcW+cTLpv2r8iwRgDXYniOAHgQ43zwGqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Does it make more sense to have the flood limit based on size in bytes
versus # of blocks?
(I'm a n00b, so pardon my ignorance). :)
D.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
> 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?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content
> authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image
> Editing and ensure content is compliant with Accessibility Checking.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-14 17:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-14 16:44 Mike Hearn
2011-06-14 17:07 ` Dave Smith [this message]
2011-06-14 17:14 ` Jeff Garzik
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=BANLkTinFaj+vXD4uOqaA63j9sA2vrq3bbg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=dizzyd@dizzyd$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=mike@plan99$(echo .)net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox