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 ABA23BA1 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 03:13:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA37AE7 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 03:13:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by widjy10 with SMTP id jy10so99252067wid.1 for ; Thu, 02 Jul 2015 20:13:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=1cZK7F0XeDhqwAlgzHYgb4zozbkFs0JTz13ABRP98mc=; b=bES7VjMmfaMhZx2DYJP/8T+dSnYv5fztVIQp/21exGuzzwKzkQTKEo6qjqZeHmrJHp VK+OAHLEafLXcL0j65NBOrTAlnOUM5OWvAhfgfqZA9BoQnHcm2yJQKdGuTKhEv/5ErhN hDdnBZF4QzJvC8NM0cIy79oo4MbSNWk+f0tiPA6+y4+GNHDPN9XI+eHbo88KGW8erneV iaaWj677JtWywO9RH8uI25V/RwiGTvzHY41BI3+SZRbG/rzeckEOHpxZUDJUeJ3LTYD/ 0eeOdGiv8R4NUUHJ79aV/hhQzzT9df1kyc9nNZroWasZkaDntGB27Fihd6sZfgP6/l9W 4Awg== X-Received: by 10.194.178.225 with SMTP id db1mr18072429wjc.153.1435893214220; Thu, 02 Jul 2015 20:13:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.229.195 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 20:13:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5595503D.2010608@phauna.org> References: <5595503D.2010608@phauna.org> From: Jeremy Rubin Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 11:13:14 +0800 Message-ID: To: Owen Gunden Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122e90cf815270519eff0f2 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 Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Defining a min spec 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, 03 Jul 2015 03:13:37 -0000 --089e0122e90cf815270519eff0f2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Might I suggest that the min-spec, if developed, target the RISC-V Rocket architecture (running on FPGA, I suppose) as a reference point for performance? This may be much lower performance than desirable, however, it means that we don't lock people into using large-vendor chipsets which have unknown, or known to be bad, security properties such as Intel AMT. In general, targeting open hardware seems to me to be more critical than performance metrics for the long term health of Bitcoin, however, performance is still important. Does anyone know how the RISC-V FPGA performance stacks up to, say, a Raspberry Pi? On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:52 PM, Owen Gunden wrote: > I'm also a user who runs a full node, and I also like this idea. I think > Gavin has done some back-of-the-envelope calculations around this stuff, > but nothing so clearly defined as what you propose. > > On 07/02/2015 08:33 AM, Mistr Bigs wrote: > >> I'm an end user running a full node on an aging laptop. >> I think this is a great suggestion! I'd love to know what system >> requirements are needed for running Bitcoin Core. >> >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Jean-Paul Kogelman >> > wrote: >> >> I=E2=80=99m a game developer. I write time critical code for a livin= g and >> have to deal with memory, CPU, GPU and I/O budgets on a daily basis. >> These budgets are based on what we call a minimum specification (of >> hardware); min spec for short. In most cases the min spec is based >> on entry model machines that are available during launch, and will >> give the user an enjoyable experience when playing our games. >> Obviously, we can turn on a number of bells and whistles for people >> with faster machines, but that=E2=80=99s not the point of this mail. >> >> The point is, can we define a min spec for Bitcoin Core? The number >> one reason for this is: if you know how your changes affect your >> available budgets, then the risk of breaking something due to >> capacity problems is reduced to practically zero. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > --089e0122e90cf815270519eff0f2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Might I sugge= st that the=C2=A0min-spec, if developed, target the RISC-V Rocket architectur= e (running on FPGA, I suppose) as a reference point for performance? This m= ay be much lower performance than desirable, however, it means that we don&= #39;t lock people into using large-vendor chipsets which have unknown, or k= nown to be bad, security properties such as Intel AMT.

In general, targeting open hardware seems to me to be more critica= l than performance metrics for the long term health of Bitcoin, however, pe= rformance is still important.

Does anyone know how the R= ISC-V FPGA performance stacks up to, say, a Raspberry Pi?
=

On Thu, Jul 2, 20= 15 at 10:52 PM, Owen Gunden <ogunden@phauna.org> wrote:
=
I'm also a user who runs a full node, an= d I also like this idea. I think Gavin has done some back-of-the-envelope c= alculations around this stuff, but nothing so clearly defined as what you p= ropose.

On 07/02/2015 08:33 AM, Mistr Bigs wrote:
I'm an end user running a full node on an aging laptop.
I think this is a great suggestion! I'd love to know what system
requirements are needed for running Bitcoin Core.

On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Jean-Paul Kogelman
 <jeanpaulko= gelman@me.com <mailto:jeanpaulkogelman@me.com>> wrote:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 I=E2=80=99m a game developer. I write time critical code for = a living and
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 have to deal with memory, CPU, GPU and I/O budgets on a daily= basis.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 These budgets are based on what we call a minimum specificati= on (of
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 hardware); min spec for short. In most cases the min spec is = based
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 on entry model machines that are available during launch, and= will
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 give the user an enjoyable experience when playing our games.=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Obviously, we can turn on a number of bells and whistles for = people
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 with faster machines, but that=E2=80=99s not the point of thi= s mail.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 The point is, can we define a min spec for Bitcoin Core? The = number
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 one reason for this is: if you know how your changes affect y= our
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 available budgets, then the risk of breaking something due to=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 capacity problems is reduced to practically zero.



 _______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--089e0122e90cf815270519eff0f2--