From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 188D2514 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 02:48:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.bluematt.me (mail.bluematt.me [192.241.179.72]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82FAD103 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 02:48:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.17.0.1] (gw.vpn.bluematt.me [162.243.132.6]) by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2F599568EF for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 02:48:04 +0000 (UTC) To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: From: Matt Corallo Message-ID: <55B1A763.3000000@mattcorallo.com> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 02:48:03 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 02:48:06 -0000 You may see much better throughput if you run a few servers around the globe and test based on closest-by-geoip. TCP throughput is rather significantly effected by latency, though I'm not really sure what you should be testing here, ideally. On 07/23/15 14:19, slurms--- via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On this day, the Bitcoin network was crawled and reachable nodes surveyed to find their maximum throughput in order to determine if it can safely support a faster block rate. Specifically this is an attempt to prove or disprove the common statement that 1MB blocks were only suitable slower internet connections in 2009 when Bitcoin launched, and that connection speeds have improved to the point of obviously supporting larger blocks. > > > The testing methodology is as follows: > > * Nodes were randomly selected from a peers.dat, 5% of the reachable nodes in the network were contacted. > > * A random selection of blocks was downloaded from each peer. > > * There is some bias towards higher connection speeds, very slow connections (<30KB/s) timed out in order to run the test at a reasonable rate. > > * The connecting node was in Amsterdam with a 1GB NIC. > > > Results: > > * 37% of connected nodes failed to upload blocks faster than 1MB/s. > > * 16% of connected nodes uploaded blocks faster than 10MB/s. > > * Raw data, one line per connected node, kilobytes per second http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=6b4NuiVQ > > > This does not support the theory that the network has the available bandwidth for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of nodes would fail to upload a 20MB block to a single peer in under 20 seconds (referencing a number quoted by Gavin). If the bar for suitability is placed at taking only 1% of the block time (6 seconds) to upload one block to one peer, then 69% of the network fails for 20MB blocks. For comparison, only 10% fail this metric for 1MB blocks. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >