Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Rethink state sync #3777

Closed
bowenwang1996 opened this issue Jan 4, 2021 · 6 comments
Closed

Rethink state sync #3777

bowenwang1996 opened this issue Jan 4, 2021 · 6 comments
Labels
A-chain Area: Chain, client & related T-core Team: issues relevant to the core team

Comments

@bowenwang1996
Copy link
Collaborator

Currently when we do state sync, we request state parts of size at most 1MB. However, when the state size is on the order of gigabytes, it means that a node needs to request thousands of parts and each part takes some time to compute. Since we request all parts at once, this causes unnecessary increase in network traffic, especially since the requests and responses are also routed. We should maybe reconsider the entire approach and see how we make it better when the state size is very large.

@bowenwang1996 bowenwang1996 added the A-chain Area: Chain, client & related label Jan 4, 2021
@bowenwang1996
Copy link
Collaborator Author

cc @mikhailOK

@mikhailOK
Copy link
Contributor

Potential ideas:

  • Try to speed up computing state parts with a faster trie iterator
  • Pre-compute state parts in the background when epoch starts (currently we compute state parts upon receiving a request)
  • Manage incoming state part requests. Don't respond twice to duplicate requests, reject instantly if there are too many queued up.

@bowenwang1996 bowenwang1996 added the T-core Team: issues relevant to the core team label Jun 29, 2021
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Sep 27, 2021

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity in the last 2 months.
It will be closed in 7 days if no further activity occurs.
Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the S-stale label Sep 27, 2021
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Dec 27, 2021

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity in the last 2 months.
It will be closed in 7 days if no further activity occurs.
Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the S-stale label Dec 27, 2021
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Mar 29, 2022

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity in the last 2 months.
It will be closed in 7 days if no further activity occurs.
Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the S-stale label Mar 29, 2022
@Longarithm
Copy link
Member

Tracked around #8545.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-chain Area: Chain, client & related T-core Team: issues relevant to the core team
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants