1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
|
Return-Path: <slurms@gmx.us>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B35E42A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 14:25:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:05:04 by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C935A9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 14:25:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [178.62.176.94] by 3capp-mailcom-bs02.server.lan (via HTTP);
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:19:59 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <trinity-c97bc41b-a953-4580-b2d2-ebdda9eb96b2-1437661199263@3capp-mailcom-bs02>
From: slurms@gmx.us
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:19:59 +0200
Importance: normal
Sensitivity: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:xCsTP6LFdSjWV1sX/8zYe0H4MVyyiVu/001QZq93+mQ
2bg0Oci/47yh/mx7spRT4Z3bCFNi+V54VlSE2+pLf2e6559d2y
XU7uAOUKwtzM+oTcJEVgvwUwcrBbP1iZNMfS4MFXx0wm1Rfz2Z
ed0sXHvNxsXcFPXE1OpbI7gn9YdoTEFwv32XgJZ0FXEjR8uZZQ
OOVETicqRbzlJmEboM0HI9wQ6fxZrPzti6C1LDOUYpPWoOX5SG
7g51IE5+WB47tB0HAeIFTtmhEUncRqzA8VP47jZsFZmd0d46Xu
Ead6jaPKqXIcBsulr/ByvYjzaet
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:hHFkz/5Zpf0=:fZ9skRSBtQg2+7bdgcP2CK
O4rQYbXUrZv2772EJP4iGHHBJZPFUrfTd+RZyzEx4+JaES2wnLESM4O9v710Mu79VQrSGOI/t
dpxNotelnFSzB6Ocy1VX5qhIBHIUtwVeL/64B+pyuGXsQoZ3z3kAefOg8+xH36L3ni4sUv+h7
ZnfiOvoTGm1FZsKxJhRF3wrCE6Jivjlr1Mp+nwwB4DYxi/EromuciwjQMQug0YbXENCGpC0i1
PERnkwT6l8QfxAQxq2CfwQ/oYphGxVMwNPh8Q3Vn9XHKh0rrh3nSiplJKbuGRjmtEe1zTaSyv
XUPBfycaYlMeS/VSMadp1fBKZQKraSAoEoiLmUCL5ovvX/TP2SaL9J2TaUWMp3qNTGdiYyBzp
uoG7T0loBBDInvaSZ6W3DFyH3qxCXsF5T8SMdrViXTlwP11rzUCgHxvv+2AQ2kPmtxeizoZQZ
e2Nn6WvANw==
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Node Speed Test
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 14:25:08 -0000
On this day, the Bitcoin network was crawled and reachable nodes surveyed t=
o find their maximum throughput in order to determine if it can safely supp=
ort a faster block rate=2E Specifically this is an attempt to prove or disp=
rove the common statement that 1MB blocks were only suitable slower interne=
t connections in 2009 when Bitcoin launched, and that connection speeds hav=
e improved to the point of obviously supporting larger blocks=2E
The testing methodology is as follows:
=C2=A0* Nodes were randomly selected from a peers=2Edat, 5% of the reachab=
le nodes in the network were contacted=2E
=C2=A0* A random selection of blocks was downloaded from each peer=2E
=C2=A0* There is some bias towards higher connection speeds, very slow con=
nections (<30KB/s) timed out in order to run the test at a reasonable rate=
=2E
=C2=A0* The connecting node was in Amsterdam with a 1GB NIC=2E=20
=C2=A0
Results:
* 37% of connected nodes failed to upload blocks faster than 1MB/s=2E
* 16% of connected nodes uploaded blocks faster than 10MB/s=2E
* Raw data, one line per connected node, kilobytes per second http://past=
ebin=2Ecom/raw=2Ephp?i=3D6b4NuiVQ
This does not support the theory that the network has the available bandwi=
dth for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of nodes would f=
ail to upload a 20MB block to a single peer in under 20 seconds (referencin=
g a number quoted by Gavin)=2E If the bar for suitability is placed at taki=
ng only 1% of the block time (6 seconds) to upload one block to one peer, t=
hen 69% of the network fails for 20MB blocks=2E For comparison, only 10% fa=
il this metric for 1MB blocks=2E
|
