<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Angel Leon <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gubatron@gmail.com" target="_blank">gubatron@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>I was wondering if the level of traffic a Bitcoin node gets is or will be so high that you have heard/will hear complains like the following:<br>
<br><ol style="line-height:1.8em;font-size:13px;font-family:Verdana;margin:0px 0px 1em;padding:0px">
<li style="margin:0px 0px 0px 2.8em;padding:0px;font-size:12px">a home router that crashes or slows down when its NAT pin-hole table overflows, triggered by many TCP connections.</li></ol></div></div></blockquote><div><br>
</div><div>The default maximum amount of connections is 125, which only happens if you have a stable node that accepts incoming connections. The maximum number of outgoing connections is always 8.<br></div><div>Should be no problem even for cheapass routers.<br>
</div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><ol style="line-height:1.8em;font-size:13px;font-family:Verdana;margin:0px 0px 1em;padding:0px">
<li style="margin:0px 0px 0px 2.8em;padding:0px;font-size:12px">
a home router that crashes or slows down by UDP traffic</li></ol></div></div></blockquote><div>N/A - We don't use UDP<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div><ol style="line-height:1.8em;font-size:13px;font-family:Verdana;margin:0px 0px 1em;padding:0px"><li style="margin:0px 0px 0px 2.8em;padding:0px;font-size:12px">a home DSL or cable modem having its send buffer filled up by outgoing data, and the buffer fits seconds worth of bytes. This adds seconds of delay on interactive traffic. For a web site that needs 10 round trips to load this may mean 10s of seconds of delay to load compared to without bittorrent. Skype or other delay sensitive applications would be affected even more.<br>
</li></ol></div></div></blockquote><div>Filling up the send buffer is certainly possible.<br></div><div>Adding throttling wouldn't be horribly hard, but this is postponed until parallel block download is implemented, so that other peers will not get stuck on your throttled node.<br>
</div><div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><ol style="line-height:1.8em;font-size:13px;font-family:Verdana;margin:0px 0px 1em;padding:0px">
<li style="margin:0px 0px 0px 2.8em;padding:0px;font-size:12px">
</li></ol><div><font color="#000000" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:12px;line-height:23.399999618530273px">I was wondering if we have or expect to have these issues in the future, perhaps uTP could help greatly the performance of the entire network at some point.</span><br>
</font></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There is enough lower-hanging fruit left.<br><br></div><div>If you're interested in speeding up the performance I think it's important to start with benchmarking and analysis to find out where the pain points are.<br>
</div> <br><div>Wladimir<br><br></div></div></div></div>