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 1D9D6952 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:46:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f48.google.com (mail-pa0-f48.google.com [209.85.220.48]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41CAC1A7 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:46:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pasz6 with SMTP id z6so1875636pas.2 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:46:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=5SFTzjBHhhfqBSufXk6NZjOuWq9G+uAyF3X/SOGRsXA=; b=X6K9Izp++LvMsW7ftcj7TMuJ2hJS4aXO190eMsyPO8uIFug9pBICwwc9yLuAlctnan 6E+X55nOgLLXXxd7kIHk3qghN0XtQd+ZpUtWkRULzigIhdpLMKxU1eGvIoRNnVmoV8wA UVnfboH3N0VQA953mOMaJ9Q/1oLMs4dSGsa3Wut10glYYnbhvtP0lOuOiVhUrcZ/ZTdr WKE09mPeWLN0MWGeOkxal/aEOTMZwnWw+VMz+YjjwUhUb9PVdL+ZeAbue8YNnX2JZdei yJ39ihYvMl1UMg9hs0NpqOwuSa1bHflteBQem8avxIULAtg/OSXDzOPUrMPAvon6ub3f KewA== X-Received: by 10.68.163.97 with SMTP id yh1mr7093186pbb.36.1447174015911; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:46:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.132] (S0106bcd165303d84.cc.shawcable.net. [96.54.102.88]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id fp2sm5024717pbb.34.2015.11.10.08.46.54 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:46:55 -0800 (PST) To: Bitcoin Dev References: <5640F172.3010004@gmail.com> <20151109210449.GE5886@mcelrath.org> <5642172C.701@gmail.com> <56421F1E.4050302@gmail.com> From: Peter Tschipper Message-ID: <56421F7E.8070305@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:46:54 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56421F1E.4050302@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060604090906010105020205" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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] request BIP number for: "Support for Datastream Compression" 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: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:46:57 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060604090906010105020205 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 10/11/2015 8:45 AM, Peter Tschipper wrote: > On 10/11/2015 8:30 AM, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Peter Tschipper >> wrote: >> >> There are better ways of sending new blocks, that's certainly >> true but for sending historical blocks and seding transactions I >> don't think so. This PR is really designed to save bandwidth and >> not intended to be a huge performance improvement in terms of >> time spent sending. >> >> >> If the main point is for historical data, then sticking to just >> blocks is the best plan. >> > at the beginning yes. >> Since small blocks don't compress well, you could define a "cblocks" >> message that handles multiple blocks (just concatenate the block >> messages as payload before compression). >> > Small block are rare these days (but plenty of historical block), but > still they get a 10% compression, not bad and I think worthwhile and > the time it takes to compress small blocks is less that a millisecond > so no loss there in time. But still you have a good point and > something worthy of doing after getting compression to work. I think > it's wise to keep it simple at first and build on the success later. >> The sending peer could combine blocks so that each cblock is >> compressing at least 10kB of block data (or whatever is optimal). It >> is probably worth specifying a maximum size for network buffer >> reasons (either 1MB or 1 block maximum). > Good idea. Same answer as above. >> Similarly, transactions could be combined together and compressed >> "ctxs". The inv messages could be modified so that you can request >> groups of 10-20 transactions. That would depend on how much of an >> improvement compressed transactions would represent. >> > Good idea. Same answer as above. >> More generally, you could define a message which is a compressed >> message holder. That is probably to complex to be worth the effort >> though. > That's actually pretty easy to do and part of the plan. Sending a > cmp_block rather than a block makes it all easier to implement. It's > just a matter of doing pnode->pushmessage("cmp_block", > compressed_block); and handling the "cmp_block" command string at the > other end. >> >> >> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Johnathan Corgan via >>> bitcoin-dev >> > wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 5:58 PM, gladoscc via bitcoin-dev >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I think 25% bandwidth savings is certainly considerable, >>> especially for people running full nodes in countries >>> like Australia where internet bandwidth is lower and >>> there are data caps. >>> >>> >>> ​ This reinforces the idea that such trade-off decisions >>> should be be local and negotiated between peers, not a >>> required feature of the network P2P.​ >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Johnathan Corgan >>> Corgan Labs - SDR Training and Development Services >>> http://corganlabs.com >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --------------060604090906010105020205 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 10/11/2015 8:45 AM, Peter Tschipper wrote:
On 10/11/2015 8:30 AM, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev wrote:


On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Peter Tschipper <peter.tschipper@gmail.com> wrote:
There are better ways of sending new blocks, that's certainly true but for sending historical blocks and seding transactions I don't think so.  This PR is really designed to save bandwidth and not intended to be a huge performance improvement in terms of time spent sending.

If the main point is for historical data, then sticking to just blocks is the best plan.

at the beginning yes.
Since small blocks don't compress well, you could define a "cblocks" message that handles multiple blocks (just concatenate the block messages as payload before compression). 

Small block are rare these days (but plenty of historical block), but still they get a 10% compression, not bad and I think worthwhile and the time it takes to compress small blocks is less that a millisecond so no loss there in time.   But still you have a good point and something worthy of doing after getting compression to work.  I think it's wise to keep it simple at first and build on the success later.
The sending peer could combine blocks so that each cblock is compressing at least 10kB of block data (or whatever is optimal).  It is probably worth specifying a maximum size for network buffer reasons (either 1MB or 1 block maximum).
Good idea. Same answer as above.
Similarly, transactions could be combined together and compressed "ctxs".  The inv messages could be modified so that you can request groups of 10-20 transactions.  That would depend on how much of an improvement compressed transactions would represent.

Good idea. Same answer as above.
More generally, you could define a message which is a compressed message holder.  That is probably to complex to be worth the effort though.
That's actually pretty easy to do and part of the plan.  Sending a cmp_block rather than a block makes it all easier to implement.  It's just a matter of doing pnode->pushmessage("cmp_block", compressed_block); and handling the "cmp_block" command string at the other end.

 

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Johnathan Corgan via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 5:58 PM, gladoscc via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
 
I think 25% bandwidth savings is certainly considerable, especially for people running full nodes in countries like Australia where internet bandwidth is lower and there are data caps.
​ This reinforces the idea that such trade-off decisions should be be local and negotiated between peers, not a required feature of the network P2P.​
 

--
Johnathan Corgan
Corgan Labs - SDR Training and Development Services

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev




_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev





_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--------------060604090906010105020205--