From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Suder-0008K6-KL for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 06:04:17 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1Sudeq-00014o-Qr for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 06:04:17 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [97.96.85.141]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C64D656000B; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 06:04:13 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 06:03:59 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.4.4-gentoo-nestfix; KDE/4.8.3; x86_64; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201207270604.01966.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1Sudeq-00014o-Qr Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Scalability issues X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 06:04:17 -0000 On Friday, July 27, 2012 5:59:20 AM grarpamp wrote: > > I now have an 1.8 ghz p3 celeron (128k cache) which should be > > substantially slower than your machine, running vintage 2.6.20 linux. > > Unfortunately I forgot to turn on timestamp logging so I don't know > > how long it took to sync the chain, but it was less than two days as > > that was the span between when I checked on it. It's staying current > > Well, are you running bitcoin on, say, an FS with sha256 integrity > trees for all bits and AES-128-XTS/CBC disk encryption? Trying to run state-of-the-art encryption on EVERYTHING on an ancient computer is fairly ill-advised. I encourage you to continue with the plan to go shopping. > Someone suggested I investigate turning off the above features. > Since I'd find their loss undesirable [1], and there's not much to be > tuned there anyways, I've given up and am investigating what more > GHz and cores will do. > > [1] Keeping data both intact and private is a good thing. Does your > checkbook deserve any less? Sounds reasonable... but why do you also need to encrypt 2+ GB of public record? Luke