[RC5] Block size, fetch/flush frequency and database workload

Mike Silbersack silby at execpc.com
Fri Mar 6 11:23:16 EST 1998

On Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:31:17 +0200, Hannu Nyman wrote:

>Since it seems to take so long to update the statistics database for
>the RC5-64 contest, it seems to me that we have too many
>transactions. Having so many transactions decreases our efficiency.
>I see two factors causing this:
>1) People are processing (too) small blocks, which increases the 
>amount of block transfers.
>2) People are updating their buffers too frequently. (in order to 
>advance in statistics?)
>The workload of both the keyservers and statistics database would 
>decrease if there were less transactions. So, should we have a 
>recommendation about using larger block sizes? Like "use a block 
>size that checks a block in about 2-3 hours". (Or use even longer 
>taking blocks.)
>Using the default buffer size (10 blocks) with "2 hour blocks" would 
>produce one update per day (which would just perfect for maintaining 
>the position in stats ;-).
>Hannu Nyman

You're perfectly right about the block size issue, which is why default blocks are 2^30 as opposed to 2^28 now... if 
people went to 2^31 our load would be half as much again.  However, the time and interval that blocks are sent in is 
irrelevant; it's actually better to send them in as you feel like it so this it smooths out load over the day.

Mike "Silby" Silbersack
silby at execpc.com
Distributed.Net Tech Support

We cracked RC5-56.  We cracked DES.  Can you help us with RC5-64?
Put your idle CPU to work:  Add it to the world's LARGEST computer.
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest

More information about the rc5 mailing list