Ridiculously slow bitcoin core wallet sync

RoadStress

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1007

Quote from: BookLover on January 08, 2015, 09:56:07 PM

Quote from: RD965 on January 08, 2015, 12:17:22 PM

In the "mirroring" mode, dont you lose space and speed? Whats the difference between having that and a backup hdd?

Yes you lose space, but not speed. I've read you may actually have a slight gain in reed speed, but that's irrelevant. The difference is it's a mirror, not a backup, so if you delete something it is deleted from both hdd's. However, you have the benifit of being able to replace a drive if it dies while still using the computer. It will be slower while the RAID arrays rebuilds, but in a business the lack of downtime is important.

@RoadStress: I don't mean to ignore you, I just don't know the answer to your question. I would love to see a seperate topic started on this. So if you start one, please link to it in this thread or send me a pm.

~~Sure. Just name the appropriate sub-forum and I'll do it. Here on Technical Support?~~

Discuss the topic here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=918890.new#new

Thank you.

RD965

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: RoadStress on January 08, 2015, 08:06:58 PM

Maybe a bit offtopic, but I don't know where to address this. What type of hard drive would be the best for storing the blockchain running as a full node? Will a SSD drive die sooner than a regular drive?

SSD drives are meant to be more durable than mechanical HDD's, the only disadvantage is obviously the $/GB, and since there is a faster access to the files (because SSD's use flash drive technology) It would be more suitable for any task

p.s. Cheers BookLover

shorena

copper member

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1528

No I dont escrow anymore.

Ill stop following this thread, if anyone has any more questions regarding the threads topic, feel free to open a new thread.

Your "what is a raid level" discussion should have been removed, but apparently mods disagree about it beeing off topic.

BookLover

hero member

Activity: 533

Merit: 500

^Bitcoin Library of Congress.

Quote from: RD965 on January 08, 2015, 12:17:22 PM

In the "mirroring" mode, dont you lose space and speed? Whats the difference between having that and a backup hdd?

Yes you lose space, but not speed. I've read you may actually have a slight gain in reed speed, but that's irrelevant. The difference is it's a mirror, not a backup, so if you delete something it is deleted from both hdd's. However, you have the benifit of being able to replace a drive if it dies while still using the computer. It will be slower while the RAID arrays rebuilds, but in a business the lack of downtime is important.

@RoadStress: I don't mean to ignore you, I just don't know the answer to your question. I would love to see a seperate topic started on this. So if you start one, please link to it in this thread or send me a pm.

RoadStress

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1007

Maybe a bit offtopic, but I don't know where to address this. What type of hard drive would be the best for storing the blockchain running as a full node? Will a SSD drive die sooner than a regular drive?

RD965

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: BookLover on January 08, 2015, 10:22:23 AM

RAID arrays are not always used for speed. They can be used for:

Quote from: RD965 on January 02, 2015, 08:50:20 AM

Raid setups are always less safe!

I say:

Quote from: BookLover on January 06, 2015, 10:59:19 AM

Depending on the RAID level used a RAID array can be dramatically safer than independent disks.

Agree

Then you have the choice of speed vs reliability

In the "mirroring" mode, dont you lose space and speed? Whats the difference between having that and a backup hdd?

BookLover

hero member

Activity: 533

Merit: 500

^Bitcoin Library of Congress.

RAID arrays are not always used for speed. They can be used for:

Quote from: RD965 on January 02, 2015, 08:50:20 AM

Raid setups are always less safe!

I say:

Quote from: BookLover on January 06, 2015, 10:59:19 AM

Depending on the RAID level used a RAID array can be dramatically safer than independent disks.

RD965

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: BookLover on January 07, 2015, 03:39:19 PM

You're correct in saying that RAID 0 is less safe than independant disks as you will lose the data on all disks rather than just one if one fails. However, my previous statement is still true:

Quote from: BookLover on January 06, 2015, 10:59:19 AM

Depending on the RAID level used, a RAID array can be dramatically safer than independant disks.

For example RAID 1, which mirrors the data on the disks, is much safer than simply using independant disks. RAID 5, 6, and 1+0 also incorporate various levels of redundancy, while independant disks do not.

I dont see the point on using any other than RAID0, because what you want is speed, otherwise what do you mean?

BookLover

hero member

Activity: 533

Merit: 500

^Bitcoin Library of Congress.

You're correct in saying that RAID 0 is less safe than independent disks as you will lose the data on all disks rather than just one if one fails. However, my previous statement is still true:

Quote from: BookLover on January 06, 2015, 10:59:19 AM

Depending on the RAID level used, a RAID array can be dramatically safer than independent disks.

For example RAID 1, which mirrors the data on the disks, is much safer than simply using independent disks. RAID 5, 6, and 1+0 also incorporate various levels of redundancy, while independent disks do not.

RD965

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: BookLover on January 06, 2015, 10:59:19 AM

Quote from: RD965 on January 02, 2015, 08:50:20 AM

Raid setups are always less safe!

I'm not sure where you heard this, but it is not true. Depending on the RAID level used a RAID array can be dramatically safer than independant disks.

Nope

Its a well known thing, because for speed youll normally use RAID0, and if for every reason one of the hdds crashes the whole set would be unusable

BookLover

hero member

Activity: 533

Merit: 500

^Bitcoin Library of Congress.

Quote from: RD965 on January 02, 2015, 08:50:20 AM

Raid setups are always less safe!

I'm not sure where you heard this, but it is not true. Depending on the RAID level used a RAID array can be dramatically safer than independent disks.

altcoinex

sr. member

Activity: 293

Merit: 251

Director - www.cubeform.io

Quote from: Triffin on December 24, 2014, 02:49:53 PM

Ridiculously slow bitcoin core wallet sync ..

And yet another reason why BTC or ( insert favorite alt ) won't be going mainstream any time soon ..

Triff ..

SPV Mode, Pruning, and Lightweight Wallet clients have a different opinion for the future.

RD965

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: BookLover on December 24, 2014, 06:25:23 PM

If it ever reaches 2TB, I'll have an excuse to build myself a larger RAID array (and maybe the funds too Wink

).

lol its very far from 2tb. Raid setups are always less safe!

crazyearner

legendary

Activity: 1820

Merit: 1001

Quote from: BitcoinChick86 on December 24, 2014, 06:56:07 PM

Quote from: BookLover on December 24, 2014, 06:25:23 PM

If it ever reaches 2TB, I'll have an excuse to build myself a larger RAID array (and maybe the funds too Wink

).

I love the way techies always find "excuses" to upgrade their hardware. My motherboard was recently playing up... maybe? I dunno, I just wanted an X99 Chipset and DDR4 RAM Sad

Yup its the perfect excuse to upgraded. Even tho I have about 16TB of space but used for Burstcoin mining ill still find some way of needing an upgrade and soon be buying some 6TB hard drives or maybe the new 10TB hard drives when out this year depending on prices. Is good to upgrade every few years or just upgrade to high end equipment and not have to be worried about upgrading for a long time.

Have a nice system with a AMD (Piledriver) FX-8350 4.00GHz Black edition over clocked to 5GH water cooled and never get any problems with it and right now the newest chip out since buying is AMD (Piledriver) FX-9590. So theirs only been 3 releases of new cpus since I got my 8350 Only time when I will be upgrading again possibly is when they introduce the 12 core this year or maybe when theirs 16 core and can max that with all the video editing and music production I do.

BitcoinChick86

newbie

Activity: 12

Merit: 0

Quote from: BookLover on December 24, 2014, 06:25:23 PM

If it ever reaches 2TB, I'll have an excuse to build myself a larger RAID array (and maybe the funds too Wink

).

I love the way techies always find "excuses" to upgrade their hardware. My motherboard was recently playing up... maybe? I dunno, I just wanted an X99 Chipset and DDR4 RAM Sad

BookLover

hero member

Activity: 533

Merit: 500

^Bitcoin Library of Congress.

If it ever reaches 2TB, I'll have an excuse to build myself a larger RAID array (and maybe the funds too Wink

).

BitcoinChick86

newbie

Activity: 12

Merit: 0

I always plan to run a full node no matter how big it gets, unless it gets over 2 TB then I may need to pay for a new server Wink

shorena

copper member

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1528

No I dont escrow anymore.

Quote from: BitcoinChick86 on December 24, 2014, 02:40:22 PM

Thanks for the post Shorena, Mine has been syncing for and got to 138000 in 3 days, now its done 15000 blocks in about 5 minutes Cheesy

Quote from: theboarderdude on December 24, 2014, 01:14:18 PM

@shorena I used the Amsterdam address and I was able to download the remaining ~100,000 blocks in about 7 hours. Thanks!

glad I could help.

Quote from: BitHarry on December 24, 2014, 03:11:55 PM

I disagree, Just because its a large does not me its inaccessable, Internet connections are getting better and im sure they will find a way to cut the blockchain down. Bitcoin-QT is by far the most stable wallet IMO and I have used them all, I have had problems with them all apart from Bitcoin-QT

Satoshi predicted this. There are several posts hinting towards the majority of users using slim clients. IIRC Satoshis upper bound was <100,000 full nodes ever and slim clients for the rest.
On the other hand we have the bitcoin core devs [1] working on a way to make a it semi slim clients where you can configure an upper bound of diskspace the node can use.
I think any reasonable [2] wallet is fine and there is (or at least will be) a wallet for every kind of user.

[1] here is a recent post where this came up https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/deleting-old-blocks-to-save-space-904383
[2] proper encryption, you control the keys, capable of backups etc.

BitHarry

newbie

Activity: 3

Merit: 0

I disagree, Just because its a large does not me its inaccessable, Internet connections are getting better and im sure they will find a way to cut the blockchain down. Bitcoin-QT is by far the most stable wallet IMO and I have used them all, I have had problems with them all apart from Bitcoin-QT

Triffin

sr. member

Activity: 952

Merit: 251

Ridiculously slow bitcoin core wallet sync ..

And yet another reason why BTC or ( insert favorite alt ) won't be going mainstream any time soon ..

Triff ..

Topic: Ridiculously slow bitcoin core wallet sync (Read 8557 times)