- Jan 09, 2024
-
-
ordian authored
Closes #2225. - [x] tests - [x] fix todos - [x] fix duplicates - [x] make the check part of `potential_spam` - [x] fix a bug with votes insertion - [x] guide changes - [x] docs --------- Co-authored-by:
Tsvetomir Dimitrov <[email protected]>
-
- Dec 13, 2023
-
-
Alexandru Gheorghe authored
Initial implementation for the plan discussed here: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/issues/701 Built on top of https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/pull/1178 v0: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot/pull/7554, ## Overall idea When approval-voting checks a candidate and is ready to advertise the approval, defer it in a per-relay chain block until we either have MAX_APPROVAL_COALESCE_COUNT candidates to sign or a candidate has stayed MAX_APPROVALS_COALESCE_TICKS in the queue, in both cases we sign what candidates we have available. This should allow us to reduce the number of approvals messages we have to create/send/verify. The parameters are configurable, so we should find some values that balance: - Security of the network: Delaying broadcasting of an approval shouldn't but the finality at risk and to make sure that never happens we won't delay sending a vote if we are past 2/3 from the no-show time. - Scalability of the network: MAX_APPROVAL_COALESCE_COUNT = 1 & MAX_APPROVALS_COALESCE_TICKS =0, is what we have now and we know from the measurements we did on versi, it bottlenecks approval-distribution/approval-voting when increase significantly the number of validators and parachains - Block storage: In case of disputes we have to import this votes on chain and that increase the necessary storage with MAX_APPROVAL_COALESCE_COUNT * CandidateHash per vote. Given that disputes are not the normal way of the network functioning and we will limit MAX_APPROVAL_COALESCE_COUNT in the single digits numbers, this should be good enough. Alternatively, we could try to create a better way to store this on-chain through indirection, if that's needed. ## Other fixes: - Fixed the fact that we were sending random assignments to non-validators, that was wrong because those won't do anything with it and they won't gossip it either because they do not have a grid topology set, so we would waste the random assignments. - Added metrics to be able to debug potential no-shows and mis-processing of approvals/assignments. ## TODO: - [x] Get feedback, that this is moving in the right direction. @ordian @sandreim @eskimor @burdges, let me know what you think. - [x] More and more testing. - [x] Test in versi. - [x] Make MAX_APPROVAL_COALESCE_COUNT & MAX_APPROVAL_COALESCE_WAIT_MILLIS a parachain host configuration. - [x] Make sure the backwards compatibility works correctly - [x] Make sure this direction is compatible with other streams of work: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/issues/635 & https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/issues/742 - [x] Final versi burn-in before merging --------- Signed-off-by:
Alexandru Gheorghe <[email protected]>
-
- Nov 20, 2023
-
-
jserrat authored
Hey guys, as discussed I've changed the name to a more general one `PvfExecKind`, is this good or too general? Creating this as a draft, I still have to fix the tests. Closes #1585 Kusama address: FkB6QEo8VnV3oifugNj5NeVG3Mvq1zFbrUu4P5YwRoe5mQN --------- Co-authored-by: command-bot <> Co-authored-by:
Marcin S <[email protected]>
-
- Nov 03, 2023
-
-
s0me0ne-unkn0wn authored
-
- Oct 13, 2023
-
-
Julian Eager authored
Co-authored-by:
Marcin S <[email protected]>
-
- Sep 27, 2023
-
-
Chris Sosnin authored
- Async-backing related primitives are stable `primitives::v6` - Async-backing API is now part of `api_version(7)` - It's enabled on Rococo and Westend runtimes --------- Signed-off-by:
Andrei Sandu <[email protected]> Co-authored-by:
Andrei Sandu <[email protected]>
-