Re: [Bitcoin-development] have there been complains about network congestion? (router crashes, slow internet when running Bitcoin nodes)

[Angel Leon <gubatron@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2355 bytes --]

Those clarifications are what I needed to hear. For some reason I started
thinking about this last night and wanted to bring it up just in case it
would help, but def. not necessary. Will get back to more low hanging fruit
in the UI/UX as I get to know the project more.

Gregory: "But there doesn't have to be and shouldn't just be one
network transport
for Bitcoin."
is there a formal abstraction for a Transport layer? I suppose if there
isn't it'll be there when needed.

Thanks!

http://twitter.com/gubatron


On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Angel Leon <gubatron@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I was wondering if the level of traffic a Bitcoin node gets is or will be
>> so high that you have heard/will hear complains like the following:
>>
>>
>>    1. a home router that crashes or slows down when its NAT pin-hole
>>    table overflows, triggered by many TCP connections.
>>
>>
> The default maximum amount of connections is 125, which only happens if
> you have a stable node that accepts incoming connections. The maximum
> number of outgoing connections is always 8.
> Should be no problem even for cheapass routers.
>
>
>>    1. a home router that crashes or slows down by UDP traffic
>>
>> N/A - We don't use UDP
>
>
>>    1. a home DSL or cable modem having its send buffer filled up by
>>    outgoing data, and the buffer fits seconds worth of bytes. This adds
>>    seconds of delay on interactive traffic. For a web site that needs 10 round
>>    trips to load this may mean 10s of seconds of delay to load compared to
>>    without bittorrent. Skype or other delay sensitive applications would be
>>    affected even more.
>>
>> Filling up the send buffer is certainly possible.
> Adding throttling wouldn't be horribly hard, but this is postponed until
> parallel block download is implemented, so that other peers will not get
> stuck on your throttled node.
>
>>
>>    1.
>>
>> I was wondering if we have or expect to have these issues in the future,
>> perhaps uTP could help greatly the performance of the entire network at
>> some point.
>>
>
> There is enough lower-hanging fruit left.
>
> If you're interested in speeding up the performance I think it's important
> to start with benchmarking and analysis to find out where the pain points
> are.
>
> Wladimir
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4798 bytes --]