On Friday, July 27, 2012 5:59:20 AM grarpamp wrote: > > I now have an 1.8 ghz p3 celeron (128k cache) which should be > > substantially slower than your machine, running vintage 2.6.20 linux. > > Unfortunately I forgot to turn on timestamp logging so I don't know > > how long it took to sync the chain, but it was less than two days as > > that was the span between when I checked on it. It's staying current > > Well, are you running bitcoin on, say, an FS with sha256 integrity > trees for all bits and AES-128-XTS/CBC disk encryption?
Trying to run state-of-the-art encryption on EVERYTHING on an ancient computer is fairly ill-advised. I encourage you to continue with the plan to go shopping. > Someone suggested I investigate turning off the above features. > Since I'd find their loss undesirable [1], and there's not much to be > tuned there anyways, I've given up and am investigating what more > GHz and cores will do. > > [1] Keeping data both intact and private is a good thing. Does your > checkbook deserve any less? Sounds reasonable... but why do you also need to encrypt 2+ GB of public record? Luke ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
