On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Michael Hendricks <mich...@ndrix.org>wrote:

> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Rune Kjær Svendsen 
> <runesv...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> I have an application that wants to keep up with new blocks as they come
>> in. For that I can use the -blocknotify option with bitcoind, which will
>> execute my application for each new block.
>> The problem is that my app isn't necessarily quick enough to finish its
>> work before a new block comes in and the app is executed again.
> In a similar circumstance, I changed my -blocknotify script to quickly
> append necessary information to a queue and immediately exit.  A separate
> script runs at all times monitoring this queue for work and performs the
> labor intensive calculations.

I've thought about this as well. It just seems somewhat clunky to me. I'd
really prefer having bitcoind put out messages in batches, if it's doable,
that is.

I'd run into a lot of concurrency issues, as far as I can see, where I
can't be sure that the queue isn't written to while, for example, it is
opened by the program that needs to process the queue items.

What if a disk operation takes a long time to finish, and a two queue
operations want to add to the queue simultaneously? This really brings
forward all the horrors of concurrent programming.

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Jeremy Spilman <jer...@taplink.co> wrote:

> Would it work to just block the bitcoind thread until your process exits?

I don't think that's optimal, no. That would slow down synchronization

It would be really nimble for bitcoind to be able to synchronize at full
speed, and only send out events when necessary, batching together
previously queued items.
Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite
It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production
Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead.
Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes.
Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to