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
|
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 <dizzyd@gmail.com>) 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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
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: <BANLkTinuEayfr5S9NEcW+cTLpv2r8iwRgDXYniOAHgQ43zwGqQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTinuEayfr5S9NEcW+cTLpv2r8iwRgDXYniOAHgQ43zwGqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:07:59 -0600
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Vb_2h2zraMEAthIbkBnu5HEgXJk
Message-ID: <BANLkTinFaj+vXD4uOqaA63j9sA2vrq3bbg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Smith <dizzyd@dizzyd.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
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: <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: 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 <mike@plan99.net> 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
>
|
