Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
	designates 209.85.128.44 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.128.44; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
	helo=mail-qe0-f44.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAH2=CKxBX6BcLS+CSKxZstut+uhHPQUY7HnLHSoMjZACgd4v1g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH2=CKzW41TYbX6c1F8oknA_LttOaA8vmDPmojuowXgEADY61g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFHuXuZaSNkUUX8o_k=wSf5MeQ3tAj6yD8DJuLwbyA0C3xRQuQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH2=CKxBX6BcLS+CSKxZstut+uhHPQUY7HnLHSoMjZACgd4v1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 15:25:44 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0M+EExHNMoQ7K3u8R6KHF-sZLbGcEoREyuZzwuvrn1zgQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Rune_Kj=E6r_Svendsen?= <runesvend@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Implementing batch processing for
	-blocknotify
Precedence: list

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Rune Kj=E6r Svendsen <runesvend@gmail.com>=
 wrote:
> I've thought about this as well. It just seems somewhat clunky to me. I'd
> really prefer having bitcoind put out messages in batches, if it's doable=
,
> that is.
>
> I'd run into a lot of concurrency issues, as far as I can see, where I ca=
n't
> be sure that the queue isn't written to while, for example, it is opened =
by
> the program that needs to process the queue items.
>
> What if a disk operation takes a long time to finish, and a two queue
> operations want to add to the queue simultaneously? This really brings
> forward all the horrors of concurrent programming.

This is not a compelling need to update bitcoind for this.

The vast majority of systems are currently capable of processing a
block, before another block arrives.

As for parallel processing, your "what if" has been a solved problem
for decade(s) now.

--=20
Jeff Garzik
Senior Software Engineer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/