-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 46
Fix OOM error in large parentchain syncs with sidechain feature. #1493
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
15 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
986d2d5
improve log levels
clangenb d84bcd1
[service] `sidechain_start_untrusted_rpc_server`downgrade tokyo handl…
clangenb 24522cd
[service/main] distinguish better between different setups
clangenb c2fac9f
[service/main] extract duplicate code
clangenb bc77a5b
[service/main] fix clippy
clangenb ee4bf37
[service/main] fix clippy with teeracle
clangenb 9c6abe8
Merge branch 'master' into cl/fix-sidechain-oom
clangenb 3acdc2e
introduce `is_syncing` in `sync_parentchain`
clangenb 1ab60ee
remove obsolete `trigger_parentchain_block` ffi
clangenb fb3db5e
remove unused import
clangenb 9c25d88
fix clippy
clangenb d907646
fix test compilation
clangenb 4d65577
Merge branch 'master' into cl/fix-sidechain-oom
clangenb d49ec56
[service/main] extract `init_proxied_shard_vault`
clangenb 54f378e
Merge branch 'master' into cl/fix-sidechain-oom
clangenb File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
I believe this simple
is_syncingbool flag is not enoughThere 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.
I agree with all points. I think there was a reason why it has been implemented the way it is now, but I forgot, and I don't see a reason why this is currently like that.
is_major_sync, which is true whenever a node is far behind the best block. This concept does not really apply in our case, as we will send the light-client db to an outdated worker. However, what I am trying to say is that we stay somewhat in the substrate-jargon if we useis_initial_sync.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.
wouldn't it be more descriptive to call the flag
ignore_invocations?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.
hmmm, if this is the only thing that this flag is going to be used for yes, but I am not 100% if it is. Regardless, as long as we keep it like that, I agree. It could also be something like:
verify_only.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.
Ah, we could also use this as some point maybe for non-authoring sidechain rpc-nodes, if we ever want to have them.