* [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues
@ 2012-07-22 22:37 grarpamp
2012-07-23 7:23 ` Raphael NICOLLE
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: grarpamp @ 2012-07-22 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-development
Given a testbed: Pentium 4 1.8GHz single core, 2GB ram, FreeBSD 8,
disk is geli aes-128 + zfs sha-256, bitcoin 0.6.3, Tor proxy,
An estimate is made that by the end of the year bitcoin will
completely overrun the capabilities of this reasonable class of
machines.
It already takes a month to build a new blockchain, let alone keep up
with new incoming blocks.
Yes, it also has workstation duties, yet even if those were removed,
it would probably choke by mid 2013.
It would appear bitcoin has some *serious* scalability hurdles coming
down the road.
Most certainly if the user expects to independantly build, manage, and
trust their own blockchain.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues 2012-07-22 22:37 [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues grarpamp @ 2012-07-23 7:23 ` Raphael NICOLLE 2012-07-23 7:35 ` Gregory Maxwell 2012-07-23 22:50 ` Aidan Thornton 2 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Raphael NICOLLE @ 2012-07-23 7:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: grarpamp; +Cc: bitcoin-development Hello, Even though I'm not a dev, I can't agree more, and would like to know if they are expected steps being taken, some fixes coming, or whatever? Thank you all for your hard work. Raphael On 07/23/2012 12:37 AM, grarpamp wrote: > Given a testbed: Pentium 4 1.8GHz single core, 2GB ram, FreeBSD 8, > disk is geli aes-128 + zfs sha-256, bitcoin 0.6.3, Tor proxy, > An estimate is made that by the end of the year bitcoin will > completely overrun the capabilities of this reasonable class of > machines. > It already takes a month to build a new blockchain, let alone keep up > with new incoming blocks. > Yes, it also has workstation duties, yet even if those were removed, > it would probably choke by mid 2013. > > It would appear bitcoin has some *serious* scalability hurdles coming > down the road. > Most certainly if the user expects to independantly build, manage, and > trust their own blockchain. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues 2012-07-22 22:37 [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues grarpamp 2012-07-23 7:23 ` Raphael NICOLLE @ 2012-07-23 7:35 ` Gregory Maxwell 2012-07-23 9:00 ` Michael Grønager 2012-07-23 22:50 ` Aidan Thornton 2 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: Gregory Maxwell @ 2012-07-23 7:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: grarpamp; +Cc: bitcoin-development On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 6:37 PM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail•com> wrote: > It already takes a month to build a new blockchain, let alone keep up > with new incoming blocks. Please fix your software stack. Something is wrong with your system and I doubt it has much to do with bitcoin. A full sync here takes something like an hour. There are certainly lots of scalability things going on, but there is no cause for concern for regular hardware being unable to _keep up_ without a hardforking change to the protocol first. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues 2012-07-23 7:35 ` Gregory Maxwell @ 2012-07-23 9:00 ` Michael Grønager 2012-07-23 15:11 ` grarpamp 2012-07-23 15:54 ` steve 0 siblings, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Michael Grønager @ 2012-07-23 9:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gregory Maxwell; +Cc: bitcoin-development I would guess that you are running the blockchain download through the tor-proxy - that would give you the times you mention. Further, encrypting your disk (aes stuff) will not help you much either, and encrypting a the storage of a public blockchain seems to me a bit odd ? I get a full blockchain from scratch in 45 minutes on my laptop, but, I still agree with Gregory that scalability improvements are needed, but the problem is far from critical in the sense outlined here. /M On 23/07/2012, at 09:35, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 6:37 PM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail•com> wrote: >> It already takes a month to build a new blockchain, let alone keep up >> with new incoming blocks. > > Please fix your software stack. Something is wrong with your system > and I doubt it has much to do with bitcoin. A full sync here takes > something like an hour. > > There are certainly lots of scalability things going on, but there is > no cause for concern for regular hardware being unable to _keep up_ > without a hardforking change to the protocol first. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues 2012-07-23 9:00 ` Michael Grønager @ 2012-07-23 15:11 ` grarpamp [not found] ` <CAAS2fgREzk_dU0ie+YvDdRwKcTk6tk_i=a2Bb74w9uF=EwYhGA@mail.gmail.com> 2012-07-23 15:54 ` steve 1 sibling, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: grarpamp @ 2012-07-23 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bitcoin-development > Please fix your software stack. Something is wrong > with your system Nothing wrong, it's all default install. I documented the platform for anyone who wants to confirm it. > A full sync here takes something like an hour. And what, similarly, is your platform? It takes 5 seconds... on my Cray. > I would guess that you are running the blockchain download > through the tor-proxy Use of Tor was stated. Tor is fast enough. I can copy the entire 3GiB of the .bitcoin dir in 7 days... off a slow hidden service. And 0.5 days via exit. > encrypting your disk (aes stuff) will not help you much either Encryption is a perfectly reasonable thing to expect users of bitcoin to be interested in doing. In fact, those not encrypting their disks should probably rethink that plan. > encrypting a the storage of a public blockchain seems to me a bit odd ? Well, without detachdb, it's somehow tied to the wallet, whether while processing or offline. And the wallet and debug.log are not relocatable from the data. And encrypting everything is perfectly reasonable anyways. As is storing your valuable data on filesystems that verify the integrity of their data on disk, such as ZFS/BTRFS. These days, crypto, Tor, and ZFS are common and non-arguments. > I get a full blockchain from scratch in 45 minutes on my laptop Again, timings with no CPU/OS/disk specs are useless infos. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CAAS2fgREzk_dU0ie+YvDdRwKcTk6tk_i=a2Bb74w9uF=EwYhGA@mail.gmail.com>]
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues [not found] ` <CAAS2fgREzk_dU0ie+YvDdRwKcTk6tk_i=a2Bb74w9uF=EwYhGA@mail.gmail.com> @ 2012-07-23 22:33 ` grarpamp 2012-07-27 4:20 ` grarpamp 0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: grarpamp @ 2012-07-23 22:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bitcoin-development > You're seriously suggesting that I'm using a system > which is 720x (one month vs one hour) faster than your > P4 1.8GHz? Don't know what you're using since you've not stated it. > I find this doubtful, especially since bitcoin's sync is effectively > single threaded. Extra cores help with disk, crypto, net, etc... > month I've spent about two weeks crunching about the last month's worth of new blocks. > Your results are not expected and are not believed to be > representative. The config is reproducible, and not believed to be uncommon. > try to isolate it Mostly disk and crypto. Shall everyone instead run in bitrot and no-privacy mode? What do we do when we've got 10k trans a day coming in? 50k? 100k, 1M? When the chain gets 1M, 50M, 500M, 1B long? Forget my swamped box, these numbers are coming to others. > try to sync from a local node into tmpfs I'd bet some people using 'tmpfs' probably have it unknowingly [fall]backed to swap instead of core. Bitcoin already takes up 3GiB of disk, how many have that much free RAM? How many have 30GiB, 300GiB? > If you're building against BDB later than the recommended 4.8 > be aware that there have been performance regressions with later > versions Yes, I left out that bit of platform so here are the remaining bits... db4830, boost149, vm.kmem_size=650000000 I'm not bashing anything or anybody, just detailing a stock config that is underwater. Anybody wishing to verify can get the hardware from their junk pile and the software from freebsd.org. I'll certainly be looking at both it and different setups too. If anyone's using say Linux/BSD, BTRFS/ZFS, crypto, on i386/amd64, they could chime in with their times too. Disk is the cheapest, easiest thing for Joe to get. Think about indexing and checkpointing into said disk. I don't know what bitcoin's doing, but if it's verifying every transaction back to the root, that would seem a bit ridiculous. Joe probably won't be happy buying TiB's for bitcoind, so after that's filled (assuming there's CPU to do it), the trust model has to change. These scales are coming... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues 2012-07-23 22:33 ` grarpamp @ 2012-07-27 4:20 ` grarpamp 2012-07-27 4:59 ` Gregory Maxwell [not found] ` <CAPg+sBjpqqxL_GxYc+8Ry7DcXMkouO9bYi5VqOyEjj_5s0x06Q@mail.gmail.com> 0 siblings, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: grarpamp @ 2012-07-27 4:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bitcoin-development Update: this class of machine just became useless for bitcoin. When blk0002.dat was created to store more blocks, all forward progress processing blocks turned into losing ground by 20 or so a day. Guessing both datfiles were being accessed at once resulting in disk based overload. I've not seen any other mentions of crypto in this thread so I'm not sure how well new hardware would perform. Going shopping I guess. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues 2012-07-27 4:20 ` grarpamp @ 2012-07-27 4:59 ` Gregory Maxwell 2012-07-27 5:59 ` grarpamp [not found] ` <CAPg+sBjpqqxL_GxYc+8Ry7DcXMkouO9bYi5VqOyEjj_5s0x06Q@mail.gmail.com> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: Gregory Maxwell @ 2012-07-27 4:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: grarpamp; +Cc: bitcoin-development On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:20 AM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail•com> wrote: > Update: this class of machine just became useless for bitcoin. > When blk0002.dat was created to store more blocks, all forward > progress processing blocks turned into losing ground by 20 or so > a day. Guessing both datfiles were being accessed at once resulting > in disk based overload. I've not seen any other mentions of crypto > in this thread so I'm not sure how well new hardware would perform. > Going shopping I guess. I now have an 1.8 ghz p3 celeron (128k cache) which should be substantially slower than your machine, running vintage 2.6.20 linux. Unfortunately I forgot to turn on timestamp logging so I don't know how long it took to sync the chain, but it was less than two days as that was the span between when I checked on it. It's staying current just fine. Again, I encourage you to investigate your software configuration. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues 2012-07-27 4:59 ` Gregory Maxwell @ 2012-07-27 5:59 ` grarpamp 2012-07-27 6:03 ` Luke-Jr ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: grarpamp @ 2012-07-27 5:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bitcoin-development > I now have an 1.8 ghz p3 celeron (128k cache) which should be > substantially slower than your machine, running vintage 2.6.20 linux. > Unfortunately I forgot to turn on timestamp logging so I don't know > how long it took to sync the chain, but it was less than two days as > that was the span between when I checked on it. It's staying current Well, are you running bitcoin on, say, an FS with sha256 integrity trees for all bits and AES-128-XTS/CBC disk encryption? If not, we're not comparing the same apples, let alone the same OS. > Again, I encourage you to investigate your software configuration. Someone suggested I investigate turning off the above features. Since I'd find their loss undesirable [1], and there's not much to be tuned there anyways, I've given up and am investigating what more GHz and cores will do. [1] Keeping data both intact and private is a good thing. Does your checkbook deserve any less? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues 2012-07-27 5:59 ` grarpamp @ 2012-07-27 6:03 ` Luke-Jr 2012-07-27 6:28 ` grarpamp 2012-07-27 6:56 ` Gregory Maxwell 2012-07-27 8:53 ` Andreas Petersson 2 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: Luke-Jr @ 2012-07-27 6:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bitcoin-development On Friday, July 27, 2012 5:59:20 AM grarpamp wrote: > > I now have an 1.8 ghz p3 celeron (128k cache) which should be > > substantially slower than your machine, running vintage 2.6.20 linux. > > Unfortunately I forgot to turn on timestamp logging so I don't know > > how long it took to sync the chain, but it was less than two days as > > that was the span between when I checked on it. It's staying current > > Well, are you running bitcoin on, say, an FS with sha256 integrity > trees for all bits and AES-128-XTS/CBC disk encryption? Trying to run state-of-the-art encryption on EVERYTHING on an ancient computer is fairly ill-advised. I encourage you to continue with the plan to go shopping. > Someone suggested I investigate turning off the above features. > Since I'd find their loss undesirable [1], and there's not much to be > tuned there anyways, I've given up and am investigating what more > GHz and cores will do. > > [1] Keeping data both intact and private is a good thing. Does your > checkbook deserve any less? Sounds reasonable... but why do you also need to encrypt 2+ GB of public record? Luke ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues 2012-07-27 6:03 ` Luke-Jr @ 2012-07-27 6:28 ` grarpamp 0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: grarpamp @ 2012-07-27 6:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bitcoin-development > shopping. Good thing I can still spend, even with an incomplete blockchain :) > but why do you also need to encrypt 2+ GB of public record? 1) I'm not seeing an option to split the wallet, debug log and other privates pathwise from the blockchain. 2) Because encrypt everything is reasonable standard practice. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu [ref: disputed quote] BTW, logs for this box say at least 9 days were spent attempting to crunch the most recent 3100 blocks before it was overrun with new ones and retired. (There's no formal start timestamp, just some entries...) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues 2012-07-27 5:59 ` grarpamp 2012-07-27 6:03 ` Luke-Jr @ 2012-07-27 6:56 ` Gregory Maxwell 2012-07-27 19:37 ` grarpamp 2012-07-27 8:53 ` Andreas Petersson 2 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: Gregory Maxwell @ 2012-07-27 6:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: grarpamp; +Cc: bitcoin-development On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 1:59 AM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail•com> wrote: >> I now have an 1.8 ghz p3 celeron (128k cache) which should be >> substantially slower than your machine, running vintage 2.6.20 linux. >> Unfortunately I forgot to turn on timestamp logging so I don't know >> how long it took to sync the chain, but it was less than two days as >> that was the span between when I checked on it. It's staying current > > Well, are you running bitcoin on, say, an FS with sha256 integrity > trees for all bits and AES-128-XTS/CBC disk encryption? > If not, we're not comparing the same apples, let alone the same OS. The file system is using twofish-cbc-essiv:sha256, apparently. (I went and dug up a mothballed machine of mine because of your post). And I agree, encrypting everything is a good practice— I once got a disk back from RMA where only the first sectors were zeroed and the rest had someone elses data, since then I've encrypted everything because you can't wipe a dead drive. I'd love to know precisely what Bitcoin is doing thats making your machine so unhappy... but your configuration is uncommon for bitcoin nodes in many distinct ways so it's not clear where to start. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues 2012-07-27 6:56 ` Gregory Maxwell @ 2012-07-27 19:37 ` grarpamp 0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: grarpamp @ 2012-07-27 19:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bitcoin-development > I'd love to know precisely what Bitcoin is doing thats making your > machine so unhappy... but your configuration is uncommon for bitcoin > nodes in many distinct ways so it's not clear where to start. That's why I posted the details of the machine so interested people could duplicate it if they are working in these areas. Once I'm on new hardware and playing around I, also, may find some discoveries. I have no doubt that 'common' is windows seven on core2duo without ecc and no crypto or hashing for the disk :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues 2012-07-27 5:59 ` grarpamp 2012-07-27 6:03 ` Luke-Jr 2012-07-27 6:56 ` Gregory Maxwell @ 2012-07-27 8:53 ` Andreas Petersson 2 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Andreas Petersson @ 2012-07-27 8:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bitcoin-development I propose a pragmatic solution: Try running the Multibit client. i am not sure if the linux/java based installer would work,so maybe you have to build it from source. I tried it out is really fast compared to bitcoin-qt. after install it took me 15 seconds to get updated and running. Importing a private key/rescanning the blockchain was done in under 30 minutes. It requires Java 6, i think there is a distro even for freebsd. of course, you cannot do things as solomining with it since it uses SPV. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CAPg+sBjpqqxL_GxYc+8Ry7DcXMkouO9bYi5VqOyEjj_5s0x06Q@mail.gmail.com>]
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues [not found] ` <CAPg+sBjpqqxL_GxYc+8Ry7DcXMkouO9bYi5VqOyEjj_5s0x06Q@mail.gmail.com> @ 2012-07-27 9:59 ` Pieter Wuille 2012-07-27 19:26 ` grarpamp 1 sibling, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Pieter Wuille @ 2012-07-27 9:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bitcoin Dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1828 bytes --] And now to the list... On Jul 27, 2012 6:21 AM, "grarpamp" <grarpamp@gmail•com> wrote: > > Update: this class of machine just became useless for bitcoin. > When blk0002.dat was created to store more blocks, all forward > progress processing blocks turned into losing ground by 20 or so > a day. Guessing both datfiles were being accessed at once resulting > in disk based overload. I've not seen any other mentions of crypto > in this thread so I'm not sure how well new hardware would perform. > Going shopping I guess. I doubt the encryption is the problem. I have a much more recent machine (i7 with 8 GiB RAM), and my blockchain is on a (userspace!) encrypted filesystem. However, I do not notice any measurable slowdown from doing so. You are however using a filesystem (ZFS) that is uses its own filesystem caching implementation to reach some performance, and is known to be very memory-hungry at that. Furthermore, I believe it is known to have performance issues on 32-bit architectures. The bdb backend Bitcoin uses does many I/O operations, and writes them synchronously to disk, killing whatever caching your filesystem provides. For those who run a large database on ZFS, I believe it is advised to put ZFS's intent log on a separate SSD-backed device, to get fast synchronous writes. That said, some improvememts may be coming. Mike has been working on changing the backend from bdb to leveldb, which may (or may not) result in a very different performance profile on your machine. Also, I've been working on switching the bitcoin block verifier to use a different style database layout ("ultraprune"), which is smaller, faster, and will support pruning. A recent test on my own machine synced the blockchain up to the latest checkpoint in 7 minutes (6 minutes when stored in RAM instead of disk). -- Pieter [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2034 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues [not found] ` <CAPg+sBjpqqxL_GxYc+8Ry7DcXMkouO9bYi5VqOyEjj_5s0x06Q@mail.gmail.com> 2012-07-27 9:59 ` Pieter Wuille @ 2012-07-27 19:26 ` grarpamp 1 sibling, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: grarpamp @ 2012-07-27 19:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bitcoin-development > You are however using a filesystem (ZFS) I'm aware of the memory and i386 issues, and going shopping. > The bdb backend Bitcoin uses > does many I/O operations, and writes them synchronously to disk, killing > whatever caching your filesystem provides. Sync... yes, depending on the rate/sec and size of them, that would be an issue. "Enterprise" systems with UPS, good disk, etc assume writes are committed upon return, eliminating need for software apps to do sync. So I need to figure out how to turn that off? Is sync on for everything, or just the wallet (where it could be argued as ok)? > For those who run a large > database on ZFS, I believe it is advised to put ZFS's intent log on a > separate SSD-backed device, to get fast synchronous writes. Guessing bitcoin's writes are small? So a RAM dev intent would be cheaper and faster than SSD for that. > on switching the bitcoin block verifier to use a different style database > layout ("ultraprune"), which is smaller, faster, and will support pruning. I'll try to search that. If it's anything like "delete old blocks/tx/coins that have both been validated in the past and fully spent in the future since we no longer need to validate further back beyond them [1]", that would be interesting. [1] Unless you're a historian or some usage other than casual transactions. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues 2012-07-23 9:00 ` Michael Grønager 2012-07-23 15:11 ` grarpamp @ 2012-07-23 15:54 ` steve 2012-07-24 8:25 ` Michael Grønager 1 sibling, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: steve @ 2012-07-23 15:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael Grønager; +Cc: bitcoin-development -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Michael, On 23/07/2012 10:00, Michael Grønager wrote: > I get a full blockchain from scratch in 45 minutes on my laptop, > /M > Hang on a sec, in 45 minutes you can download the entire chain from the genesis block? I have been doing extensive testing in this area and would love to know what is special about your setup (I have never had the entire chain in under 12 hours, infact it is normally closerto 24.) I have an extensive setup of test machines, everything from e4300 to phenom2x6 to i5's. as an example on an amd e-450 with 4gb ram, and approx 3gb/s internet connection it took 2 hours to sync the last 5 days. Maybe i am missing something important... Any additional information that you could provide to help me with testing would be really appreciated. cheers, steve -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQDXO4AAoJEFvEB9dQFvtQxdcH/ieqQkyDCg8mKeOa6CqsWaS6 fhoeny3Ke2b/CsvhYmsThCvntN9volIqR2CTn5tkHiVwG9OmlxyHZcNpN0ZTHhK5 lsfLap/Y0QpiysXpV4Bu7Z4Hwp9jnhOP74TshT305r2pX6EGXPQ0CrlHqlIry/X/ vNcunUclliou+KjL7EHcY50GH5wDpqJAjlNyF97Lj9YiPrAC9vahGwWdxkbCYtG+ KUuWGBKMMdHuMAgcQh7nI9q0WT3k/gzRQtuC2kf+v0wvQhaGlTVkku4uanhpuw4p 99blRF3/SfWimGuQgsm6wT3Y7dk+z8MFHLb6XGPxmgV9+gF+TWNczfU3GRzfcXw= =CQkI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues 2012-07-23 15:54 ` steve @ 2012-07-24 8:25 ` Michael Grønager 2012-07-24 9:18 ` Mike Hearn 2012-07-24 19:56 ` steve 0 siblings, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Michael Grønager @ 2012-07-24 8:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: steve; +Cc: bitcoin-development Hi Steve, 45-90 minutes - note that its numbers from March/April, so a bit longer today, but far, far away from the 12 hours. I am using libcoin and the bitcoind build based on this. Libcoin is based on the Satoshi client, but refactured to use an async concurrency model. I also did a minor tweeks to the db parameters. It has earlier been tested up against Satoshi bitcoin where on some OS'es it performs similarly (at least on some linuxes) and on some faster (e.g. mac). What is your CPU load during a block download ? (both initially/up to the point where verification sets in and after). The initial download is typically disk I/O bound, the verification stage CPU bound, though I lean to believe that even there it is disk I/O bound (at least on my system ~50% CPU load). What should be better in libcoin is the concurrency model. The Satoshi client uses a pure reentrant mutexes model, that is not generally believed to motivate the best coding practice nor performance, you might end up without the concurrency you initially strived for *). As mentioned earlier libcoin uses a pure async concurrency model (and so does libbitcoin btw). I would like to stress again that these numbers will depend largely on the system running the test - I would call my laptop a bit over the average today (MB Pro, 2.66Ghz i7 dual core, 8GBRAM, 512GB SSD). But again 12 hours - I only reach such numbers on some of my VPS'es (linode 1024) that are known for notoriously slow disk I/O. (here I have a few % CPU load during the verification indicating indeed that the disk i/o is the culprit). Cheers, Michael *) I like this Dave Butenhof quote: "The biggest of all the big problems with recursive mutexes is that they encourage you to completely lose track of your locking scheme and scope. This is deadly. Evil. It's the "thread eater". You hold locks for the absolutely shortest possible time. Period. Always. If you're calling something with a lock held simply because you don't know it's held, or because you don't know whether the callee needs the mutex, then you're holding it too long. You're aiming a shotgun at your application and pulling the trigger. You presumably started using threads to get concurrency; but you've just PREVENTED concurrency." On 23/07/2012, at 17:54, steve wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi Michael, > > On 23/07/2012 10:00, Michael Grønager wrote: >> I get a full blockchain from scratch in 45 minutes on my laptop, >> /M >> > Hang on a sec, in 45 minutes you can download the entire chain from > the genesis block? > > I have been doing extensive testing in this area and would love to > know what is special about your setup (I have never had the entire > chain in under 12 hours, infact it is normally closerto 24.) I have an > extensive setup of test machines, everything from e4300 to phenom2x6 > to i5's. > > as an example on an amd e-450 with 4gb ram, and approx 3gb/s internet > connection it took 2 hours to sync the last 5 days. > > Maybe i am missing something important... > > Any additional information that you could provide to help me with > testing would be really appreciated. > > cheers, > > steve > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQDXO4AAoJEFvEB9dQFvtQxdcH/ieqQkyDCg8mKeOa6CqsWaS6 > fhoeny3Ke2b/CsvhYmsThCvntN9volIqR2CTn5tkHiVwG9OmlxyHZcNpN0ZTHhK5 > lsfLap/Y0QpiysXpV4Bu7Z4Hwp9jnhOP74TshT305r2pX6EGXPQ0CrlHqlIry/X/ > vNcunUclliou+KjL7EHcY50GH5wDpqJAjlNyF97Lj9YiPrAC9vahGwWdxkbCYtG+ > KUuWGBKMMdHuMAgcQh7nI9q0WT3k/gzRQtuC2kf+v0wvQhaGlTVkku4uanhpuw4p > 99blRF3/SfWimGuQgsm6wT3Y7dk+z8MFHLb6XGPxmgV9+gF+TWNczfU3GRzfcXw= > =CQkI > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues 2012-07-24 8:25 ` Michael Grønager @ 2012-07-24 9:18 ` Mike Hearn 2012-07-24 19:56 ` steve 1 sibling, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Mike Hearn @ 2012-07-24 9:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael Grønager; +Cc: bitcoin-development > The Satoshi client uses a pure reentrant mutexes model As you presumably already know, the reference client doesn't attempt to parallelise most operations at all. Chain download is entirely single threaded. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues 2012-07-24 8:25 ` Michael Grønager 2012-07-24 9:18 ` Mike Hearn @ 2012-07-24 19:56 ` steve 2012-07-25 9:45 ` Michael Grønager 1 sibling, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: steve @ 2012-07-24 19:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael Grønager; +Cc: bitcoin-development Hi Michael, from what I have noticed, bitcoin blockchain download/verfication all happens in 1 thread. (so multicores doesnt really help) That said, I have never tried on an ssd. What I do have is 6 SATA 6gbs configed as RAID0 Drives. 32gb of ram. ubuntu 64 (yeah I know), this runs upto 16 VM's (I have 4 of these) However I have not tried to download the blockchain on the master os, just in virtulisation. However, the dedicated machines that I have been using for benchmarking the VM's against is a q6600 8gb ram sata2 hdd - Win 7 (seems faster than slackware...) to me it has always felt like network bandwidth was the issue. I might instrument the bitcoin-qt exe to only pick low ping nodes (has someone already done this?) I guess it is time to start some benchmarking (like the gpu comparison page) hte verification for the 5 past 5 days was negliglable. I am off on a flight to australia tomorrrow, so I will set some breakpoints and do some timings in a debugger. This will all happen on an e-450 (wonderful machine!) Thanks very much for your response. it would seem that I am 'doing it wrong' :/ cheers mate, steve (this message isnt signed because I have forgotten my password.) On 24/07/2012 09:25, Michael Grønager wrote: > Hi Steve, > > 45-90 minutes - note that its numbers from March/April, so a bit > longer today, but far, far away from the 12 hours. > > I am using libcoin and the bitcoind build based on this. Libcoin is > based on the Satoshi client, but refactured to use an async > concurrency model. I also did a minor tweeks to the db parameters. It > has earlier been tested up against Satoshi bitcoin where on some > OS'es it performs similarly (at least on some linuxes) and on some > faster (e.g. mac). > > What is your CPU load during a block download ? (both initially/up to > the point where verification sets in and after). The initial download > is typically disk I/O bound, the verification stage CPU bound, though > I lean to believe that even there it is disk I/O bound (at least on > my system ~50% CPU load). What should be better in libcoin is the > concurrency model. The Satoshi client uses a pure reentrant mutexes > model, that is not generally believed to motivate the best coding > practice nor performance, you might end up without the concurrency > you initially strived for *). As mentioned earlier libcoin uses a > pure async concurrency model (and so does libbitcoin btw). > > I would like to stress again that these numbers will depend largely > on the system running the test - I would call my laptop a bit over > the average today (MB Pro, 2.66Ghz i7 dual core, 8GBRAM, 512GB SSD). > But again 12 hours - I only reach such numbers on some of my VPS'es > (linode 1024) that are known for notoriously slow disk I/O. (here I > have a few % CPU load during the verification indicating indeed that > the disk i/o is the culprit). > > Cheers, > > Michael > > > *) I like this Dave Butenhof quote: "The biggest of all the big > problems with recursive mutexes is that they encourage you to > completely lose track of your locking scheme and scope. This is > deadly. Evil. It's the "thread eater". You hold locks for the > absolutely shortest possible time. Period. Always. If you're calling > something with a lock held simply because you don't know it's held, > or because you don't know whether the callee needs the mutex, then > you're holding it too long. You're aiming a shotgun at your > application and pulling the trigger. You presumably started using > threads to get concurrency; but you've just PREVENTED concurrency." > > > > > On 23/07/2012, at 17:54, steve wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > On 23/07/2012 10:00, Michael Grønager wrote: >>>> I get a full blockchain from scratch in 45 minutes on my >>>> laptop, /M >>>> > Hang on a sec, in 45 minutes you can download the entire chain from > the genesis block? > > I have been doing extensive testing in this area and would love to > know what is special about your setup (I have never had the entire > chain in under 12 hours, infact it is normally closerto 24.) I have > an extensive setup of test machines, everything from e4300 to > phenom2x6 to i5's. > > as an example on an amd e-450 with 4gb ram, and approx 3gb/s > internet connection it took 2 hours to sync the last 5 days. > > Maybe i am missing something important... > > Any additional information that you could provide to help me with > testing would be really appreciated. > > cheers, > > steve > >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Live Security Virtual Conference >> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and >> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. >> Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the >> latest in malware threats. >> http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ >> _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development >> mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues 2012-07-24 19:56 ` steve @ 2012-07-25 9:45 ` Michael Grønager 2012-07-25 14:24 ` steve 0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: Michael Grønager @ 2012-07-25 9:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: steve; +Cc: bitcoin-development Hi Steve, I see dramatic differences in performance on virtual machines vs running directly on the iron. I am not an expert in virtual machines, but it seems to me that they are weak when it comes to disk i/o. And berkeley DB, as used by bitcoin is a sucker for disk i/o. In top I easily hit >1/#processors in top wa, meaning that the cpu doing the blockchain download is just waiting for the disk all the time. I would like to do a test keeping database log files in memory. It should not matter for durability of the wallet, as it flushes at each write anyway. As for the blockindex, it will remain consistent, but might be lagging some blocks behind at startup, which shouldn't really matter (except that the same block could end up appearing twice in the block00X files, inelegant, but not really a problem). Otherwise the system you describe (raid0 over 6 disks) should perform like crazy wrt disk i/o, at least on par with SSD. It is your virtualization I am worried about. Have a safe trip to down under! /M On 24/07/2012, at 21:56, steve wrote: > Hi Michael, > > from what I have noticed, bitcoin blockchain download/verfication all > happens in 1 thread. (so multicores doesnt really help) > > That said, I have never tried on an ssd. > > What I do have is 6 SATA 6gbs configed as RAID0 Drives. > 32gb of ram. ubuntu 64 (yeah I know), this runs upto 16 VM's > (I have 4 of these) > > However I have not tried to download the blockchain on the master os, > just in virtulisation. However, the dedicated machines that I have been > using for benchmarking the VM's against is a q6600 8gb ram sata2 hdd - > Win 7 (seems faster than slackware...) to me it has always felt like > network bandwidth was the issue. I might instrument the bitcoin-qt exe > to only pick low ping nodes (has someone already done this?) > > I guess it is time to start some benchmarking (like the gpu comparison page) > > hte verification for the 5 past 5 days was negliglable. I am off on a > flight to australia tomorrrow, so I will set some breakpoints and do > some timings in a debugger. > > This will all happen on an e-450 (wonderful machine!) > > Thanks very much for your response. it would seem that I am 'doing it > wrong' :/ > > cheers mate, > > steve > > (this message isnt signed because I have forgotten my password.) > > On 24/07/2012 09:25, Michael Grønager wrote: >> Hi Steve, >> >> 45-90 minutes - note that its numbers from March/April, so a bit >> longer today, but far, far away from the 12 hours. >> >> I am using libcoin and the bitcoind build based on this. Libcoin is >> based on the Satoshi client, but refactured to use an async >> concurrency model. I also did a minor tweeks to the db parameters. It >> has earlier been tested up against Satoshi bitcoin where on some >> OS'es it performs similarly (at least on some linuxes) and on some >> faster (e.g. mac). >> >> What is your CPU load during a block download ? (both initially/up to >> the point where verification sets in and after). The initial download >> is typically disk I/O bound, the verification stage CPU bound, though >> I lean to believe that even there it is disk I/O bound (at least on >> my system ~50% CPU load). What should be better in libcoin is the >> concurrency model. The Satoshi client uses a pure reentrant mutexes >> model, that is not generally believed to motivate the best coding >> practice nor performance, you might end up without the concurrency >> you initially strived for *). As mentioned earlier libcoin uses a >> pure async concurrency model (and so does libbitcoin btw). >> >> I would like to stress again that these numbers will depend largely >> on the system running the test - I would call my laptop a bit over >> the average today (MB Pro, 2.66Ghz i7 dual core, 8GBRAM, 512GB SSD). >> But again 12 hours - I only reach such numbers on some of my VPS'es >> (linode 1024) that are known for notoriously slow disk I/O. (here I >> have a few % CPU load during the verification indicating indeed that >> the disk i/o is the culprit). >> >> Cheers, >> >> Michael >> >> >> *) I like this Dave Butenhof quote: "The biggest of all the big >> problems with recursive mutexes is that they encourage you to >> completely lose track of your locking scheme and scope. This is >> deadly. Evil. It's the "thread eater". You hold locks for the >> absolutely shortest possible time. Period. Always. If you're calling >> something with a lock held simply because you don't know it's held, >> or because you don't know whether the callee needs the mutex, then >> you're holding it too long. You're aiming a shotgun at your >> application and pulling the trigger. You presumably started using >> threads to get concurrency; but you've just PREVENTED concurrency." >> >> >> >> >> On 23/07/2012, at 17:54, steve wrote: >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> On 23/07/2012 10:00, Michael Grønager wrote: >>>>> I get a full blockchain from scratch in 45 minutes on my >>>>> laptop, /M >>>>> >> Hang on a sec, in 45 minutes you can download the entire chain from >> the genesis block? >> >> I have been doing extensive testing in this area and would love to >> know what is special about your setup (I have never had the entire >> chain in under 12 hours, infact it is normally closerto 24.) I have >> an extensive setup of test machines, everything from e4300 to >> phenom2x6 to i5's. >> >> as an example on an amd e-450 with 4gb ram, and approx 3gb/s >> internet connection it took 2 hours to sync the last 5 days. >> >> Maybe i am missing something important... >> >> Any additional information that you could provide to help me with >> testing would be really appreciated. >> >> cheers, >> >> steve >> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> > Live Security Virtual Conference >>> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and >>> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. >>> Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the >>> latest in malware threats. >>> http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ >>> _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development >>> mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> >> >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues 2012-07-25 9:45 ` Michael Grønager @ 2012-07-25 14:24 ` steve 0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: steve @ 2012-07-25 14:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael Grønager; +Cc: bitcoin-development On 25/07/2012 10:45, Michael Grønager wrote: > Hi Steve, > > I see dramatic differences in performance on virtual machines vs > running directly on the iron. I am not an expert in virtual > machines, They can be, it depends on how they are set up. For reference, these VM's used to test network stacks and file format bugs. They do this via debug tracing, trace into, not over. They then dump this data in files and it can keep up with a core2 duo laptop for file io. however I moved to using an in ram database (4gb chunks, that then get dumped over the network port to a db on a seperate machine) I am not sure I have the skills to instrament this into bitcoind > > I would like to do a test keeping database log files in memory. It > should not matter for durability of the wallet, as it flushes at > each write anyway. As for the blockindex, it will remain > consistent, but might be lagging some blocks behind at startup, > which shouldn't really matter (except that the same block could end > up appearing twice in the block00X files, inelegant, but not really > a problem). > > Otherwise the system you describe (raid0 over 6 disks) should > perform like crazy wrt disk i/o, at least on par with SSD. It is > your virtualization I am worried about. I will test that when I get back :) > > Have a safe trip to down under! will do, thanks for the response. :) > > /M > > On 24/07/2012, at 21:56, steve wrote: > >> Hi Michael, >> >> from what I have noticed, bitcoin blockchain >> download/verfication all happens in 1 thread. (so multicores >> doesnt really help) >> >> That said, I have never tried on an ssd. >> >> What I do have is 6 SATA 6gbs configed as RAID0 Drives. 32gb of >> ram. ubuntu 64 (yeah I know), this runs upto 16 VM's (I have 4 >> of these) >> >> However I have not tried to download the blockchain on the >> master os, just in virtulisation. However, the dedicated >> machines that I have been using for benchmarking the VM's against >> is a q6600 8gb ram sata2 hdd - Win 7 (seems faster than >> slackware...) to me it has always felt like network bandwidth was >> the issue. I might instrument the bitcoin-qt exe to only pick >> low ping nodes (has someone already done this?) >> >> I guess it is time to start some benchmarking (like the gpu >> comparison page) >> >> hte verification for the 5 past 5 days was negliglable. I am off >> on a flight to australia tomorrrow, so I will set some >> breakpoints and do some timings in a debugger. >> >> This will all happen on an e-450 (wonderful machine!) >> >> Thanks very much for your response. it would seem that I am >> 'doing it wrong' :/ >> >> cheers mate, >> >> steve >> >> (this message isnt signed because I have forgotten my password.) >> >> On 24/07/2012 09:25, Michael Grønager wrote: >>> Hi Steve, >>> >>> 45-90 minutes - note that its numbers from March/April, so a >>> bit longer today, but far, far away from the 12 hours. >>> >>> I am using libcoin and the bitcoind build based on this. >>> Libcoin is based on the Satoshi client, but refactured to use >>> an async concurrency model. I also did a minor tweeks to the >>> db parameters. It has earlier been tested up against Satoshi >>> bitcoin where on some OS'es it performs similarly (at least on >>> some linuxes) and on some faster (e.g. mac). >>> >>> What is your CPU load during a block download ? (both >>> initially/up to the point where verification sets in and >>> after). The initial download is typically disk I/O bound, the >>> verification stage CPU bound, though I lean to believe that >>> even there it is disk I/O bound (at least on my system ~50% CPU >>> load). What should be better in libcoin is the concurrency >>> model. The Satoshi client uses a pure reentrant mutexes model, >>> that is not generally believed to motivate the best coding >>> practice nor performance, you might end up without the >>> concurrency you initially strived for *). As mentioned earlier >>> libcoin uses a pure async concurrency model (and so does >>> libbitcoin btw). >>> >>> I would like to stress again that these numbers will depend >>> largely on the system running the test - I would call my laptop >>> a bit over the average today (MB Pro, 2.66Ghz i7 dual core, >>> 8GBRAM, 512GB SSD). But again 12 hours - I only reach such >>> numbers on some of my VPS'es (linode 1024) that are known for >>> notoriously slow disk I/O. (here I have a few % CPU load during >>> the verification indicating indeed that the disk i/o is the >>> culprit). >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> >>> *) I like this Dave Butenhof quote: "The biggest of all the big >>> problems with recursive mutexes is that they encourage you to >>> completely lose track of your locking scheme and scope. This >>> is deadly. Evil. It's the "thread eater". You hold locks for >>> the absolutely shortest possible time. Period. Always. If >>> you're calling something with a lock held simply because you >>> don't know it's held, or because you don't know whether the >>> callee needs the mutex, then you're holding it too long. You're >>> aiming a shotgun at your application and pulling the trigger. >>> You presumably started using threads to get concurrency; but >>> you've just PREVENTED concurrency." >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 23/07/2012, at 17:54, steve wrote: >>> >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> On 23/07/2012 10:00, Michael Grønager wrote: >>>>>> I get a full blockchain from scratch in 45 minutes on my >>>>>> laptop, /M >>>>>> >>> Hang on a sec, in 45 minutes you can download the entire chain >>> from the genesis block? >>> >>> I have been doing extensive testing in this area and would >>> love to know what is special about your setup (I have never had >>> the entire chain in under 12 hours, infact it is normally >>> closerto 24.) I have an extensive setup of test machines, >>> everything from e4300 to phenom2x6 to i5's. >>> >>> as an example on an amd e-450 with 4gb ram, and approx 3gb/s >>> internet connection it took 2 hours to sync the last 5 days. >>> >>> Maybe i am missing something important... >>> >>> Any additional information that you could provide to help me >>> with testing would be really appreciated. >>> >>> cheers, >>> >>> steve >>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> Live Security Virtual Conference >>>> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's >>>> security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers >>>> can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, >>>> mobile security and the latest in malware threats. >>>> http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list >>>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover >> all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed >> and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include >> endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware >> threats. >> http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues 2012-07-22 22:37 [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues grarpamp 2012-07-23 7:23 ` Raphael NICOLLE 2012-07-23 7:35 ` Gregory Maxwell @ 2012-07-23 22:50 ` Aidan Thornton 2 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Aidan Thornton @ 2012-07-23 22:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: grarpamp; +Cc: bitcoin-development On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 11:37 PM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail•com> wrote: > Given a testbed: Pentium 4 1.8GHz single core, 2GB ram, FreeBSD 8, > disk is geli aes-128 + zfs sha-256, bitcoin 0.6.3, Tor proxy, > An estimate is made that by the end of the year bitcoin will > completely overrun the capabilities of this reasonable class of > machines. That's actually slower-than-Atom class hardware you're running on there, with full disk encryption on what's a very CPU and IO-heavy workload. From the benchmarks I remember, your CPU is literally slower than the first generation of single-core netbooks - the ones reviewers recommended against using full disk encryption on because they just didn't have enough CPU power to manage it. It's not surprising that Bitcoin isn't usable on that setup. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-07-27 19:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-07-22 22:37 [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues grarpamp
2012-07-23 7:23 ` Raphael NICOLLE
2012-07-23 7:35 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-07-23 9:00 ` Michael Grønager
2012-07-23 15:11 ` grarpamp
[not found] ` <CAAS2fgREzk_dU0ie+YvDdRwKcTk6tk_i=a2Bb74w9uF=EwYhGA@mail.gmail.com>
2012-07-23 22:33 ` grarpamp
2012-07-27 4:20 ` grarpamp
2012-07-27 4:59 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-07-27 5:59 ` grarpamp
2012-07-27 6:03 ` Luke-Jr
2012-07-27 6:28 ` grarpamp
2012-07-27 6:56 ` Gregory Maxwell
2012-07-27 19:37 ` grarpamp
2012-07-27 8:53 ` Andreas Petersson
[not found] ` <CAPg+sBjpqqxL_GxYc+8Ry7DcXMkouO9bYi5VqOyEjj_5s0x06Q@mail.gmail.com>
2012-07-27 9:59 ` Pieter Wuille
2012-07-27 19:26 ` grarpamp
2012-07-23 15:54 ` steve
2012-07-24 8:25 ` Michael Grønager
2012-07-24 9:18 ` Mike Hearn
2012-07-24 19:56 ` steve
2012-07-25 9:45 ` Michael Grønager
2012-07-25 14:24 ` steve
2012-07-23 22:50 ` Aidan Thornton
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox