You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This continues a discussion from Slack yesterday. Our current dbcache parameter defaults to 25 MB, which has not been changed since we forked off from Blackcoin in 2014. Bitcoin had a leveldb cache size of 100 MB in 2014, then bumped it to 300 MB in 2016 (morcos/bitcoin@32cab91) and finally to 450 MB in 2017 (bitcoin/bitcoin#10133).
I am in favor of a more conservative size, and I think 100 MB would be a good starting point to see what performance benefits we can expect from this change. Leveldb's internal benchmarks (http://www.lmdb.tech/bench/microbench/benchmark.html) suggest greatly improved read speeds with a larger cache (1.29x for sequential and 1.47x for random). If we can benchmark ourselves to get real world numbers for the change that would be even better.
As a reminder, the dbcache parameter can be easily changed by the user, so memory constrained devices can continue to use 25 MB (or even lower) if they do not want this change.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Related: checking the code, we currently have a TODO to implement the -reindex parameter. We could perform more accurate testing of this change (reindexing the block files with no network variables) with -reindex.
This continues a discussion from Slack yesterday. Our current
dbcache
parameter defaults to 25 MB, which has not been changed since we forked off from Blackcoin in 2014. Bitcoin had a leveldb cache size of 100 MB in 2014, then bumped it to 300 MB in 2016 (morcos/bitcoin@32cab91) and finally to 450 MB in 2017 (bitcoin/bitcoin#10133).I am in favor of a more conservative size, and I think 100 MB would be a good starting point to see what performance benefits we can expect from this change. Leveldb's internal benchmarks (http://www.lmdb.tech/bench/microbench/benchmark.html) suggest greatly improved read speeds with a larger cache (1.29x for sequential and 1.47x for random). If we can benchmark ourselves to get real world numbers for the change that would be even better.
As a reminder, the
dbcache
parameter can be easily changed by the user, so memory constrained devices can continue to use 25 MB (or even lower) if they do not want this change.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: