Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1QWX5y-0003jc-SM for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:08:06 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.175; envelope-from=dizzyd@gmail.com; helo=mail-yx0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-yx0-f175.google.com ([209.85.213.175]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1QWX5x-0002qt-Tq for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:08:06 +0000 Received: by yxe1 with SMTP id 1so2257091yxe.34 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:08:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.168.99 with SMTP id j63mr7090591yhl.117.1308071279875; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:07:59 -0700 (PDT) Sender: dizzyd@gmail.com Received: by 10.236.173.132 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:07:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:07:59 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Vb_2h2zraMEAthIbkBnu5HEgXJk Message-ID: From: Dave Smith To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is freemail (dizzyd[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.0 RFC_ABUSE_POST Both abuse and postmaster missing on sender domain X-Headers-End: 1QWX5x-0002qt-Tq Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bumping up against flood control limits again? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:08:06 -0000 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 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 >