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 <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>) id 1QodQa-0004Pj-Qy for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:32:12 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bluematt.me designates 208.79.240.5 as permitted sender) client-ip=208.79.240.5; envelope-from=bitcoin-list@bluematt.me; helo=smtpauth.rollernet.us; Received: from smtpauth.rollernet.us ([208.79.240.5]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1QodQa-0001Pu-3A for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:32:12 +0000 Received: from smtpauth.rollernet.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtpauth.rollernet.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15ABB594031 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 08:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.bluematt.me (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:9ff2:2:20c:29ff:fe16:f239]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: @bluematt.me) by smtpauth.rollernet.us (Postfix) with ESMTPSA for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 08:31:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:9ff2:1:ee55:f9ff:fec6:e666] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:9ff2:1:ee55:f9ff:fec6:e666]) by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8473E2698 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 17:32:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me> To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQc9a_-Qnv666c4gdkC0+jjk1QwAY8gMQv9Ts74LLaYbg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CANEZrP1-BaNmKhSPXSe2sjH0-DPm62_=OQ_S6aCT3-nLdFLLGA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ1JLtuRhqwcCWjv+H2XUjsX-Za9ZkSkOsH3t=JaUu1581RGUA@mail.gmail.com> <CANEZrP2Cr1mVcj3CQQNx6BeWSb=hzxawva2Lz=sAbjx4AwYdmw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ1JLttf+h5J8ehmx1j5P1GiGYAUiLN=fGjSV_dLoy72XQohfA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPiTikUc5At5r8XH_5paQ2odx_bib0FGO4OqhGCeQEZ_VRkz0w@mail.gmail.com> <CANEZrP0DDkeuDwNZA+WV3LGXp0Q31ZJeJAWiV=6Xm+f=ZusrhQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAS2fgQc9a_-Qnv666c4gdkC0+jjk1QwAY8gMQv9Ts74LLaYbg@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:32:00 +0200 Message-ID: <1312385520.6416.1.camel@BMThinkPad.lan.bluematt.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rollernet-Abuse: Processed by Roller Network Mail Services. Contact abuse@rollernet.us to report violations. Abuse policy: http://rollernet.us/abuse.php X-Rollernet-Submit: Submit ID 7dc7.4e3969e7.a63ee.0 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 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1QodQa-0001Pu-3A Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] DNS seeds returning gone peers X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:32:12 -0000 On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 10:48 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote: > >> There's a bigger problem here honestly. The p2p network is just starved > >> for connectable slots. > > > > Suggestions: > > - massively increasing all the anti-DoS limits in 0.4, so far they've caused > > a lot more damage than they solved. They were redone in .24 to the point that they should not cause any such issues in the future. > > You can't "massively increase" the number of available connection > slots without risking running nodes on lower memory systems (e.g. VMs) > out of memory. > > Moreover, 125 slots should be more than enough. We need to figure out > why it isn't. Agreed.