Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Node Speed Test

From: Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@gmail•com>
To: Slurms MacKenzie <slurms@gmx•us>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Node Speed Test
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 01:41:33 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAM7BtUrtfCM+P6DTGdgTTSpfq-Ot=YdTzn40dbwa_KkyoN7F7w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <trinity-650f6539-8135-4f95-a54f-9dd0744df911-1437671671241@3capp-mailcom-bs04>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3097 bytes --]

This looks like the beginnings of some great analysis.

Per Peter's remarks, I think it would be productive to run the test(s) on a
simulated network with worst case network failure(s) so that we can
determine the safety margin needed.

I have potential access to h/w resources that would be available for
running such tests at the necessary scales.

Cheers,

p.

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Slurms MacKenzie via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> The library used isn't open source, so unfortunately not. It shouldn't be
> too hard to replicate in python-bitcoinlib or bitcoinj though.
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 6:55 PM
> *From:* "Jameson Lopp" <jameson.lopp@gmail•com>
> *To:* slurms@gmx•us
> *Cc:* bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> *Subject:* 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 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
>> 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
>> nodes 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
>> connections (<30KB/s) timed out in order to run the test at a reasonable
>> rate.
>>
>>  * The connecting node was in Amsterdam with a 1GB NIC.
>>
>>
>> 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://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=6b4NuiVQ
>>
>>
>> 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 block to a single peer in under 20 seconds
>> (referencing 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 one peer, then 69% of the network fails for 20MB blocks. For comparison,
>> only 10% fail this metric for 1MB blocks.
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4913 bytes --]