Post
Topic
Board Development & Technical Discussion
Re: Electrum server on Windows: Fulcrum
by
ABCbits
on 28/01/2025, 09:00:27 UTC
So I synced Fulcrum from scratch and now it's stuck like this (for three hours now):

Code:
[2025-01-27 00:42:51.127] <Controller> Processed height: 606000, 68.8%, 18.0 blocks/sec, 38790.7 txs/sec, 136442.5 addrs/sec
[2025-01-27 00:42:51.637] <Controller> Processed 606011 new blocks with 479411650 txs (1178064770 inputs, 1278776241 outputs, 1810346733 addresses), verified ok.
[2025-01-27 00:42:51.637] <Controller> Initial sync ended, flushing and deleting UTXO Cache ...
[2025-01-27 00:42:51.637] <Controller> Storage UTXO Cache: Flushing to DB ...

Looking at the task manager it's not using disk space apparently, and just some memory (RAM) so I think it's safe to stay it's not doing anything? Also the Processed height: 606000, 68.8% makes me think that Fulcrum is aware that my Bitcoin node was stopped at a specific block height that's missing a lot of recent blocks. Not sure what to do with this thing now really, I'd be happy to have it work correctly with up toblock height 606,010 (which is where I have turned connect=0 for my node), but I don't know if that's doable.

You need to wait for flushing to finish. Painful and long, but it will pass. [1]

[1] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/116776/why-is-there-a-need-to-flush-the-utxo-set-when-you-prune-blk-dat-and-rev-dat-f

CMIIW, but it seems Fulcrum is performing flushing on it's own DB rather than passing message from Bitcoin Core.

--snip--
I’ve been considering setting up Fulcrum, but it looks like the initial sync and hardware requirements are something to plan for. Might stick with Electrs for now since it works fine for my needs

If you already use Electrs, there's no strong reason switch to Fulcrum. But while time for initial sync is definitely longer, you could configure it to use less hardware resource.