-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.6k
Tweak propagation of individual transactions in network #6601
Conversation
As already said in Riot, I'm against this solution. Why not create a proper implementation directly? |
Why do we need to complicate protocol if this will be enough? It is used in Ethereum and other networks successfully |
Also, this is complementary If we choose to complicate protocol, we still want to flood to And announce new transactions hashes to everyone. Like in this proposal: |
It says that they don't use logarithmically propagation for transactions. |
They do with referenced eip (it's already live) But yeah, probably this alone is not enough due to topology issues, I'll add announce/retrival here as well |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It looks reasonable although I would say that the timer-based propagation should go to sqrt { min: 5 (or even 10) }
and the single-transaction should be broadcast to everyone.
Also I think it would be good to implement pool reconciliation protocol at some point soon :)
@tomusdrw we already have timer-based propagation for every peer on timer (once in 3s) also see paritytech/polkadot-sdk#553 |
Co-authored-by: Tomasz Drwięga <[email protected]>
That's why I said I think it should be the other way around. The timer-based propagation ( |
ah, right @tomaka just mentioned that in new (current) protocol messages are batched automatically, so if you dispatch several messages for particular peer, they'll go batched on wire |
@tomusdrw I think with paritytech/polkadot-sdk#553 resolved we can just drop timer-based propagation |
FloodSettings::Sqrt { minimum } => ( | ||
self.context_data.peers | ||
.iter() | ||
.filter(|(_, peer)| peer.info.roles.is_full()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@arkpar was saying, that we have to include peers with authority role into the set for propagation anyway
closing because of inactivity. |
No description provided.