Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 08:42:31 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: multiple instances, and read-only blockchain  (Read 826 times)
payb.tc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812



View Profile
November 05, 2011, 06:43:44 AM
 #1

before i attempt this, i'm wondering if anyone else has been crazy enough to try...

let say you're running 2 instances of bitcoind in 2 different folders (different datadir, different ports, etc).

on the 2nd instance, instead of physical files blk00001.dat and blkindex.dat, would it be okay to have symbolic links that point to the first instance's copy of those files?

as long as instance 1 is keeping an up-to-date copy of the blockchain, instance two shouldn't need to have it's own 1gb+ of hdd space for it, but could it get away with having a READ-ONLY copy of the blockchain? (i.e. just the symlinks?).

1480884151
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480884151

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480884151
Reply with quote  #2

1480884151
Report to moderator
1480884151
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480884151

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480884151
Reply with quote  #2

1480884151
Report to moderator
1480884151
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480884151

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480884151
Reply with quote  #2

1480884151
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480884151
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480884151

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480884151
Reply with quote  #2

1480884151
Report to moderator
ovidiusoft
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252


View Profile
November 05, 2011, 07:23:39 AM
 #2

Probably not. A symlink doesn't guarantee read-only, it will depend on the target file rights. And if the second process can write to the target file, it will try. And it will probably not end well. You can try to run the second bitcoind process as another user that only has read rights on the target file and see what happens. It will most likely fail...

Remember to backup!
payb.tc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812



View Profile
November 05, 2011, 07:43:52 AM
 #3

Probably not. A symlink doesn't guarantee read-only, it will depend on the target file rights. And if the second process can write to the target file, it will try. And it will probably not end well. You can try to run the second bitcoind process as another user that only has read rights on the target file and see what happens. It will most likely fail...

Remember to backup!

well now i'm thinking that with 100gb+ free on the hdd, i'll just leave this experiment for another day Cheesy

something to think about anyway... maybe there's a need for such a scenario to be considered when the code is being worked on.
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
November 05, 2011, 09:22:36 AM
 #4

do you want 2 wallets, but only one block and transaction confirmation engine?

well im working on a more modular client, that it would be relative easy to get to support 2 separate wallets.
its more like a daemon:

network daemon <-> blockchain and transaction verification <-> wallet daemons.

each wallet daemon would send a subscribe command to that blockchain daemon, for every address. and only receive tx, to these addresses. and when a wallet would like to spend something, it sends a signed transaction back to the block daemon.

the daemons could even be on different computers(using some RPC), for extra security.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
payb.tc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812



View Profile
November 05, 2011, 09:30:23 AM
 #5

do you want 2 wallets, but only one block and transaction confirmation engine?

well im working on a more modular client, that it would be relative easy to get to support 2 separate wallets.
its more like a daemon:

network daemon <-> blockchain and transaction verification <-> wallet daemons.

each wallet daemon would send a subscribe command to that blockchain daemon, for every address. and only receive tx, to these addresses. and when a wallet would like to spend something, it sends a signed transaction back to the block daemon.

the daemons could even be on different computers(using some RPC), for extra security.

yes please, sounds great... or how about 2048 wallets and only one block and transaction confirmation engine Cheesy

(i have a habit of investigating scenarios that i'm not even likely to use... just to find out where the limits are)

having the functionality separate as you suggest, sounds like a great idea.
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
November 05, 2011, 09:40:55 AM
 #6

yes please, sounds great... or how about 2048 wallets and only one block and transaction confirmation engine Cheesy
it is not working yet. chill! https://github.com/kokjo/pycoin , but i got alot of branches, and uncommited code.

but 2048 wallets would be possible. but it would likely put the engine under alot of load. -> big costy server.
it is likely that is will not be able to scale.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
November 07, 2011, 01:26:09 AM
 #7

do you want 2 wallets, but only one block and transaction confirmation engine?

well im working on a more modular client, that it would be relative easy to get to support 2 separate wallets.
its more like a daemon:

network daemon <-> blockchain and transaction verification <-> wallet daemons.

each wallet daemon would send a subscribe command to that blockchain daemon, for every address. and only receive tx, to these addresses. and when a wallet would like to spend something, it sends a signed transaction back to the block daemon.

the daemons could even be on different computers(using some RPC), for extra security.

yes please, sounds great... or how about 2048 wallets and only one block and transaction confirmation engine Cheesy

(i have a habit of investigating scenarios that i'm not even likely to use... just to find out where the limits are)

having the functionality separate as you suggest, sounds like a great idea.
I believe the latest solidcoin client includes multiple wallets, so a merge may be possible without requiring python and some other dependencies like that. Unfortunately the code is not licenced under an acceptable licence for redistribution, however personal use should be acceptable.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!