Tier Nolan [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-11-10 📝 Original message:On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-11-10
📝 Original message:On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Peter Tschipper <peter.tschipper at gmail.com>
wrote:
> There are better ways of sending new blocks, that's certainly true but for
> sending historical blocks and seding transactions I don't think so. This
> PR is really designed to save bandwidth and not intended to be a huge
> performance improvement in terms of time spent sending.
>
If the main point is for historical data, then sticking to just blocks is
the best plan.
Since small blocks don't compress well, you could define a "cblocks"
message that handles multiple blocks (just concatenate the block messages
as payload before compression).
The sending peer could combine blocks so that each cblock is compressing at
least 10kB of block data (or whatever is optimal). It is probably worth
specifying a maximum size for network buffer reasons (either 1MB or 1 block
maximum).
Similarly, transactions could be combined together and compressed "ctxs".
The inv messages could be modified so that you can request groups of 10-20
transactions. That would depend on how much of an improvement compressed
transactions would represent.
More generally, you could define a message which is a compressed message
holder. That is probably to complex to be worth the effort though.
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Johnathan Corgan via bitcoin-dev <
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 5:58 PM, gladoscc via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think 25% bandwidth savings is certainly considerable, especially for
>>> people running full nodes in countries like Australia where internet
>>> bandwidth is lower and there are data caps.
>>>
>>
>> This reinforces the idea that such trade-off decisions should be be
>> local and negotiated between peers, not a required feature of the network
>> P2P.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Johnathan Corgan
>> Corgan Labs - SDR Training and Development Services
>> http://corganlabs.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing listbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.orghttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151110/77204283/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message:On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Peter Tschipper <peter.tschipper at gmail.com>
wrote:
> There are better ways of sending new blocks, that's certainly true but for
> sending historical blocks and seding transactions I don't think so. This
> PR is really designed to save bandwidth and not intended to be a huge
> performance improvement in terms of time spent sending.
>
If the main point is for historical data, then sticking to just blocks is
the best plan.
Since small blocks don't compress well, you could define a "cblocks"
message that handles multiple blocks (just concatenate the block messages
as payload before compression).
The sending peer could combine blocks so that each cblock is compressing at
least 10kB of block data (or whatever is optimal). It is probably worth
specifying a maximum size for network buffer reasons (either 1MB or 1 block
maximum).
Similarly, transactions could be combined together and compressed "ctxs".
The inv messages could be modified so that you can request groups of 10-20
transactions. That would depend on how much of an improvement compressed
transactions would represent.
More generally, you could define a message which is a compressed message
holder. That is probably to complex to be worth the effort though.
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Johnathan Corgan via bitcoin-dev <
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 5:58 PM, gladoscc via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think 25% bandwidth savings is certainly considerable, especially for
>>> people running full nodes in countries like Australia where internet
>>> bandwidth is lower and there are data caps.
>>>
>>
>> This reinforces the idea that such trade-off decisions should be be
>> local and negotiated between peers, not a required feature of the network
>> P2P.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Johnathan Corgan
>> Corgan Labs - SDR Training and Development Services
>> http://corganlabs.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing listbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.orghttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151110/77204283/attachment-0001.html>;