rich1.0Tomas [ARCHIVE] (npub1rs…9evk4)https://nostr.ae/npub1rsp4w56r24w3zv4xy8zfgesep45qmf9rq6aghxfw3wr7yemqnnwsf9evk4njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2017-04-07 📝 Original message:Thank you, The benches are running in Google Cloud Engine; currently on 8 vCPU 32gb, but I tend to switch hardware regularly. Roughly, the results are better for Bitcrust with high end hardware and the difference for total block validations is mostly diminished at 2 vCPU, 7,5 gb. Note that the spend-tree optimization primarily aims to improve peak load order validation; when a block with pre-synced transactions comes in, but this is tricky to accurately bench with Core using this simple method of comparison by logs. I will upgrade to, and show the results against 0.14 in the next weeks. Best, Tomas On Fri, Apr 7, 2017, at 16:14, Greg Sanders wrote: > Interesting work. > > I was wondering if you could tellank us what specs for the machine > being used as preliminary benchmark is here: > https://bitcrust.org/results ? > > I'd be interested to also see comparisons with 0.14 which has some > improvements for script validation with more cores. > > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Tomas via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin- > dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> Thank you Marcos, >> >> Though written in Rust, bitcrust-db is definitely usable as >> pluggable >> module as its interface will be roughly some queries, add_tx and >> add_block with blobs and flags. (Bitcrust internally uses a >> deserialize-only model, keeping references to the blobs with the >> parsed >> data). >> >> However, from Core's side I believe network and storage are >> currently >> rather tightly coupled, which will make this far from trivial. >> >> Regardless, I am also hoping (with funding & a team) to build a >> Bitcrust >> networking component as well to bring a strong competitor to the >> market. >> >> best, >> Tomas >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017, at 09:55, Marcos mayorga wrote: >> > Hi Tomas, >> > >> > I've read it and think it is an excellent work, I'd like to see it >> > integrated into bitcoin-core as a 'kernel module'. >> > >> > I see there are a lot of proof of concepts out there, IMO >> > every one >> > deserve a room in the bitcoin client as a selectable feature, to >> > make the >> > software more flexible and less dictatorial, an user could easily >> > select >> > which features she wants to run. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Marcos >> > >> > > I have been working on a bitcoin implementation that uses a >> > > different >> > > approach to indexing for verifying the order of transactions. >> > > Instead of >> > > using an index of unspent outputs, double spends are verified by >> > > using a >> > > spend-tree where spends are scanned against spent outputs >> > > instead of >> > > unspent outputs. >> > > >> > > This allows for much better concurrency, as not only blocks, but >> > > also >> > > individual inputs can be verified fully in parallel. >> > > >> > > I explain the approach at https://bitcrust.org, source code is >> > > available >> > > at https://github.com/tomasvdw/bitcrust >> > > >> > > I am sharing this not only to ask for your feedback, but also to >> > > call >> > > for a clear separation of protocol and implementations: As this >> > > solution, reversing the costs of outputs and inputs, seems to >> > > have >> > > excellent performance characteristics (as shown in the test >> > > results), >> > > updates to the protocol addressing the UTXO growth, might not be >> > > worth >> > > considering *protocol improvements* and it might be best to >> > > address >> > > these concerns as implementation details. >> > > >> > > Kind regards, >> > > Tomas van der Wansem >> > > tomas at bitcrust.org >> > > Bitcrust >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > bitcoin-dev mailing list >> > > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org >> > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170407/68d9cba6/attachment.html>