From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 12:30:59 -0400
Message-ID: <3054815.493DgUE4ho@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.12.4 (Linux/3.12.13-gentoo; KDE/4.12.4; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CADZB0_bqzoCT7XRgaoWBZLyfoFjWvLs8-YaP9AZ=sv7x_xJbpQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADZB0_bqzoCT7XRgaoWBZLyfoFjWvLs8-YaP9AZ=sv7x_xJbpQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] have there been complains about network
	congestion? (router crashes,
	slow internet when running Bitcoin nodes)
Precedence: list

On Tuesday, 8 April 2014, at 12:13 pm, Angel Leon wrote:
> I was wondering if we have or expect to have these issues in the futu=
re,
> perhaps uTP could help greatly the performance of the entire network =
at
> some point.

Or people could simply learn to configure their routers correctly. The =
only time I ever notice that Bitcoind is saturating my upstream link is=
 when I try to transfer a file using SCP from a computer on my home net=
work to a computer out on the Internet somewhere. SCP sets the "maximiz=
e throughput" flag in the IP "type of service" field, and my router int=
erprets that as meaning low priority, and so those SCP transfers get st=
alled behind Bitcoind. But mostly everything else (e.g., email, web bro=
wsing, instant messaging, SSH) shows no degration whatsoever regardless=
 of what Bitcoind is doing. The key is to move the packet queue from th=
e cable modem into the router, where intelligent decisions about packet=
 priority and reordering can be enacted.

=B5TP pretty much reinvents the wheel, and it does so in userspace, whe=
re the overhead is greater. There's no need for it if proper QoS is in =
effect.