finway (OP)
|
|
March 22, 2012, 05:50:50 AM Last edit: March 22, 2012, 06:08:21 AM by finway |
|
|
|
|
|
Ente
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2126
Merit: 1001
|
|
March 22, 2012, 02:26:28 PM |
|
Oh yeah, great! :-)
It really was a pain to wait one, two days for the whole chain..
Out of historical curiosity: What made it took so long? Downloading the blocks from other peers, or verifying the blocks when they got there? Also, at the beginning of the downloading they came in by the thousands, at the end you can watch the blocks come in one after another per second?
Ente
|
|
|
|
rjk
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
|
|
March 22, 2012, 02:41:21 PM |
|
Oh yeah, great! :-)
It really was a pain to wait one, two days for the whole chain..
Out of historical curiosity: What made it took so long? Downloading the blocks from other peers, or verifying the blocks when they got there? Also, at the beginning of the downloading they came in by the thousands, at the end you can watch the blocks come in one after another per second?
Ente
Verification. Later blocks were larger and had more transactions and spam, causing them to be slower. Running the initial download in a ramdisk has always been speedy, because the disk throughput was the bottleneck. Sounds like that has either been made more efficient or removed.
|
|
|
|
Pieter Wuille
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1072
Merit: 1181
|
|
March 22, 2012, 03:02:37 PM |
|
And today it was merged into mainline, so it will be part of 0.6.0 final.
|
I do Bitcoin stuff.
|
|
|
Ente
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2126
Merit: 1001
|
|
March 22, 2012, 03:05:27 PM |
|
Verification. Later blocks were larger and had more transactions and spam, causing them to be slower. Running the initial download in a ramdisk has always been speedy, because the disk throughput was the bottleneck. Sounds like that has either been made more efficient or removed.
Verification -> CPU is the bottleneck Download -> HDD is the bottleneck So, which one of the two then? :-P Defragmenting the local (large) blockchain doesnt help, in my tests. I cant believe its a HDD throughput problem.. Sure, many thousand blocks, but its just a few gigs data? So I guess "verification/CPU" is the problem. My CPU was at 100% while loading the chain, too.. But then: The point in cryptographic tools (like hashing the block to verify) is that the verify is quick, the reverse (brute-force) painfully slow? Ente
|
|
|
|
rjk
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
|
|
March 22, 2012, 03:18:43 PM |
|
Verification. Later blocks were larger and had more transactions and spam, causing them to be slower. Running the initial download in a ramdisk has always been speedy, because the disk throughput was the bottleneck. Sounds like that has either been made more efficient or removed.
Verification -> CPU is the bottleneck Download -> HDD is the bottleneck So, which one of the two then? :-P Defragmenting the local (large) blockchain doesnt help, in my tests. I cant believe its a HDD throughput problem.. Sure, many thousand blocks, but its just a few gigs data? So I guess "verification/CPU" is the problem. My CPU was at 100% while loading the chain, too.. But then: The point in cryptographic tools (like hashing the block to verify) is that the verify is quick, the reverse (brute-force) painfully slow? Ente No, it was disk bound because of huge numbers of tiny read and write operations. For those without a ramdisk, even an SSD improved the speed dramatically. Disk throughput could not be a factor in download, since a normal internet connection (less than 50mbps) would not be able to saturate a hard drive's throughput speed.
|
|
|
|
Pieter Wuille
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1072
Merit: 1181
|
|
March 22, 2012, 03:20:08 PM |
|
No:
verification: CPU is the bottleneck indexing: HDD latency is the bottleneck download: network/p2p is the bottleneck
Indexing almost always outweighed the other two, unless you were running on a ramdrive.
|
I do Bitcoin stuff.
|
|
|
rjk
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
|
|
March 22, 2012, 03:21:19 PM |
|
No:
verification: CPU is the bottleneck indexing: HDD latency is the bottleneck download: network/p2p is the bottleneck
Indexing almost always outweighed the other two, unless you were running on a ramdrive.
Yes, sorry I confused verification with indexing.
|
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
March 22, 2012, 03:23:49 PM |
|
But then: The point in cryptographic tools (like hashing the block to verify) is that the verify is quick, the reverse (brute-force) painfully slow? It was fast. The block chain took over 1000 days to create. If you downloaded and verified it in a day it was ~1000x faster to verify than create. With things like ramdisk (or improved client which keep portion of chain in ram) and the improvements the developers made to 0.6 it likely is 10,000x faster under optimal conditions.
|
|
|
|
FreeMoney
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1016
Strength in numbers
|
|
March 22, 2012, 04:22:10 PM |
|
But then: The point in cryptographic tools (like hashing the block to verify) is that the verify is quick, the reverse (brute-force) painfully slow? It was fast. The block chain took over 1000 days to create. If you downloaded and verified it in a day it was ~1000x faster to verify than create. With things like ramdisk (or improved client which keep portion of chain in ram) and the improvements the developers made to 0.6 it likely is 10,000x faster under optimal conditions. No doubt. And it took 1000 days for a very substantial amount of resources. And it could be done in 2 days (now hours?!) by one weak machine.
|
Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
March 22, 2012, 04:25:05 PM |
|
Of course (can't believe I missed that). So yeah it is more like a million fold (maybe billion fold) easier to verify than produce.
|
|
|
|
torusJKL
|
|
March 22, 2012, 04:32:58 PM |
|
That's great news. Thanks sipa.
|
|
|
|
Pieter Wuille
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1072
Merit: 1181
|
|
March 22, 2012, 04:51:03 PM |
|
Of course (can't believe I missed that). So yeah it is more like a million fold (maybe billion fold) easier to verify than produce.
That factor is determined exactly by difficulty*4295032833. That is how much harder it is to find a block nonce at a given difficulty vs. verifying it.
|
I do Bitcoin stuff.
|
|
|
Pieter Wuille
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1072
Merit: 1181
|
|
March 22, 2012, 04:54:35 PM |
|
That's great news. Thanks sipa.
I just did some testing for good parameters. Tweaking them was Gavin's idea.
|
I do Bitcoin stuff.
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
March 22, 2012, 04:56:16 PM |
|
That factor is determined exactly by difficulty*4295032833.
That is how much harder it is to find a block nonce at a given difficulty vs. verifying it.
Thanks for quantifying it.
|
|
|
|
cnbtcnews
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 54
Merit: 0
|
|
March 23, 2012, 01:19:31 AM |
|
顶!
|
|
|
|
pastory99
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 49
Merit: 0
|
|
March 23, 2012, 05:29:37 AM |
|
nice, thanks
|
|
|
|
MaxSan
|
|
March 23, 2012, 07:39:30 AM |
|
excellent. looking forward to the next release guys
|
|
|
|
bitclown
|
|
March 23, 2012, 07:48:41 AM |
|
This is the kind of headlines that will drive people to help test the pre-releases. Everybody loves massive performance improvements. Fingersnappin' good work!
|
|
|
|
Ente
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2126
Merit: 1001
|
|
March 23, 2012, 08:39:38 AM |
|
Thank you for the clarifications and thoughts, guys! Nice!
Ente
|
|
|
|
|