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
|
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 <fg@numlog.fr>)
id 1XnUK9-0006Rx-2m; Sun, 09 Nov 2014 15:22:41 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of numlog.fr
designates 5.56.47.166 as permitted sender)
client-ip=5.56.47.166; envelope-from=fg@numlog.fr;
helo=mail1.numlog.fr;
Received: from mail.numlog.fr ([5.56.47.166] helo=mail1.numlog.fr)
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with smtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1XnUK7-0007is-EQ; Sun, 09 Nov 2014 15:22:40 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail1.numlog.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DFE91E08D2;
Sun, 9 Nov 2014 16:22:32 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at numlog.fr
Received: from mail1.numlog.fr ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.numlog.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with SMTP id Mn-Zdd+NiawO; Sun, 9 Nov 2014 16:22:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: from num8.numlog.priv (unknown [192.168.13.8])
by mail1.numlog.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 661361E08CE;
Sun, 9 Nov 2014 16:22:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.20.109] (pcfg.mcz [192.168.20.109])
by num8.numlog.priv (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21C676038098;
Sun, 9 Nov 2014 16:22:23 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <545F86AD.3050002@numlog.fr>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 16:22:21 +0100
From: Francis GASCHET <fg@numlog.fr>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686;
rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-list@lists.sourceforge.net,
bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <545B5323.3000403@numlog.fr>
In-Reply-To: <545B5323.3000403@numlog.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -2.1 (--)
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_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.6 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1XnUK7-0007is-EQ
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Running a full node
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: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 15:22:41 -0000
Dear all,
+1 !
Thanks to those who sent me some details and links.
My node is up and running on 5.56.40.1:8333
Techno : Linux HA + dual homed Internet transit.
It should be stable as from now.
Best regards
--
Francis
Le 06/11/2014 11:53, Francis GASCHET a =E9crit :
> Dear all,
>
> I'm currently discovering the Bitcoin's universe.
> I installedbitcoind on my PC and I'm currently testing different=20
> things on testnet.
> I just read an article saying that the risk for Bitcoin in the future=20
> is the decreasing number of full nodes, with appropriate resources.=20
> There are only few of them in France !
>
> My company operates a dual homed Internet access and has some capacity=20
> to host an HA server in a secured environment. So I'm thinking about=20
> setting up a full node.
> But I'd like to know what storage, RAM and bandwidth resources are=20
> needed. I guess that the problem is not the CPU.
>
> Thanks in advance for details.
|
