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
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1Sh0x0-00070R-4D
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:06:42 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Sh0wu-0003UV-IW
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:06:42 +0000
Received: by werg55 with SMTP id g55so5181254wer.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.102.228 with SMTP id fr4mr4642932wib.6.1340121990386; Tue,
19 Jun 2012 09:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.216.254.232 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T3pQFqL0xsvRfnixYEATO61qMCCDdLmtqZkbVLW0Vxytg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP2xnsOHyH+a1g6qSNSx_g+TW-yvL0Due7PVr421U6kRLw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgTNqUeYy+oEFyQWrfs4Xyb=3NXutvCmLusknF-18JmFQg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2q9a_0rFh+oo6iUFF1goWs0OJO1xPvxC9zqNA-6VnFAQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T3pQFqL0xsvRfnixYEATO61qMCCDdLmtqZkbVLW0Vxytg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:06:30 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 44Bucve7j4PzuxdayNYbCI9NtA4
Message-ID: <CANEZrP08NrCJM2gxNitXrLjuY6AusNULvkcheN_0MbgFQV_QXw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[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
X-Headers-End: 1Sh0wu-0003UV-IW
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] LevelDB benchmarking
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, 19 Jun 2012 16:06:42 -0000
> What problem does it solve?
Primarily that block verification and therefore propagation is too
slow because it's very CPU and IO intensive. The CPU work can be
multi-threaded. The IO work, not as much. As Bitcoin grows we need to
scale the nodes. Eventually there may be multi-machine nodes, but for
now we can buy more time by making the existing nodes faster.
I don't see this as a replacement for moving users to SPV clients.
Obviously, otherwise I would not be writing one ;)
> If the problem it will solve is the "too easy to get a DB_RUNRECOVERY
> error" because bdb is fragile when it comes to its environment... then
> LevelDB looks very interesting.
I have no experience with how robust LevelDB is. It has an API call to
try and repair the database and I know from experience that BigTable
is pretty solid. But that doesn't mean LevelDB is.
> If the problem is bdb is creaky and old and has obscure semantics and
> a hard-to-work-with API, then yes, lets switch (I'm easily seduced by
> a pretty API and blazing fast performance).
The code is a lot simpler for sure.
> As long as it compiles and runs on mac/windows/linux that doesn't
> really worry me.
It was refactored out of BigTable and made standalone for usage in
Chrome. Therefore it's as portable as Chrome is. Mac/Windows/Linux
should all work. Solaris, I believe, may need 64 bit binaries to avoid
low FD limits.
> Lack of infrastructure because it is new does worry me; for example,
> could I rework bitcointools to read the LevelDB blockchain? =C2=A0(are
> there python bindings for LevelDB?)
Yes: http://code.google.com/p/py-leveldb/
First look at the code is here, but it's not ready for a pull req yet,
and I'll force push over it a few times to get it into shape. So don't
branch:
https://github.com/mikehearn/bitcoin/commit/2b601dd4a0093f834084241735d84d8=
4e484f183
It has misc other changes I made whilst profiling, isn't well
commented enough, etc.
|
