From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WaoyG-0002Fh-AS for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:15:28 +0000 Received: from mail-la0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WaoyC-00075l-Q1 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:15:28 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id ec20so548393lab.39 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:15:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=g/wB/Dz7o7J17uipUo0IHdT+tHrin3xL0bGW/0/ZvPc=; b=K1/FrEYh0rez3dQ+uYALuoOS9ZWKftROKuTa34r490oOqPGTmbl+JwZdcuMClqnzgQ 5Wd+aWMXTqyRLPGiSKcaXhJNzDBy3lxrthgCZKFi3fNT2TcSJnRrsFd1406ehra35sPF myclnjx5DHJonhNtS554Cb3UoDLq7ELykfqG7uFwg/mX9jplRMefclZt6XQL8+M3CYhG HVqxuFjR8vRkfNpf3zvATm+4xX1upNm7MpYk5Y506Q2itc1o6vGrmlgad0ek8do7C2eI qDDytKuCZMM6X1a1DYS5GBC9o7ubVrd43h+oicia5g1GDhQ0N44RHRNjCycVEQ5bnkYB dUjQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQndmtjk7keZ5o/Fw6Bj44cfnnDiE79Cc/w/YYttOf0adZsE7cEWQZXDMgOqRCom8mqgbkKr MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.85.6 with SMTP id d6mr7550413lbz.8.1397750985900; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:09:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.60.196 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:09:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [85.53.138.195] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:09:45 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1WaoyC-00075l-Q1 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Timed testing 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: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:15:28 -0000 On 4/17/14, Mike Hearn wrote: >> >> 2) If I wanted to measure validation performance, to get the number of >> peak tps that could be processed without taking block sides or network >> latency into account, how would I do that? Has anybody tried this >> before? > > > You can just reindex/replay the chain. It's been done many times. Yes, thank you. I guess that's what everybody is doing to measure validation performance. So I guess the timedtest mode doesn't make much sense, at most only as the blocktime parameter defaulting to zero. If bool MineBlocksOnDemand() gets refactored out of ChainParams into a parameter (maybe just use genproclimit ?), you can have the periodic block generation and the generation on demand reusing the same regtest mode. So it seems a new mode only makes sense if the -private mode makes sense, which in turn only makes sense to include in bitcoind if it's useful enough for the network attack simulations, which remains the open question.