[ETCM-1048] Remove bestKnownBlockAndLatestCheckpoint cache#1092
Conversation
leo-bogastry
force-pushed
the
feature/ETCM-1048-remove-bestKnownBlockAndLatestCheckpoint-cache
branch
from
782f49b to
e2bc270
Compare
| blockQueue.isQueued(oldBlock3.header.hash) shouldBe true | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| it should "get best stored block after reorganisation of the longer chain to a shorter one if desync state happened between cache and db" in new EphemBlockchain { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test was removed because testing synchonization between cache and DB does not make sense anymore
| import syncConfig.doFastSync | ||
|
|
||
| appStateStorage.putSyncStartingBlock(appStateStorage.getBestBlockNumber()) | ||
| appStateStorage.putSyncStartingBlock(appStateStorage.getBestBlockNumber()).commit |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's this change for? (Also elsewhere.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
without the commit the data is not saved in the DB
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah so this was actually a bugfix?
Also, doesn't it require the ()?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I added the (), but it works both ways.
I don't know if an actual bug resulted from that missing commit(), but I know that these put method return a DataSourceBatchUpdate. And this allows to chain several put calls and then commit then atomically. In this case the commit() was clearly forgotten
| (startBlock to ((startBlock - blocksToDiscard).max(1)) by -1).foreach { n => | ||
| blockchainReader.getBlockHeaderByNumber(n).foreach { headerToRemove => | ||
| blockchain.removeBlock(headerToRemove.hash, withState = false) | ||
| blockchain.removeBlock(headerToRemove.hash) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just to remark: perhaps this parameter was also added to prevent issues with write amplification, but we won't need to actually remove blocks anymore (or at least from sync logic) when we can save tentative chains / blocks. (Just need to make sure the cleanup is done in a decently efficient way.)
leo-bogastry
force-pushed
the
feature/ETCM-1048-remove-bestKnownBlockAndLatestCheckpoint-cache
branch
from
e2bc270 to
1a21548
Compare
leo-bogastry
force-pushed
the
feature/ETCM-1048-remove-bestKnownBlockAndLatestCheckpoint-cache
branch
from
1a21548 to
ad62f4c
Compare
|
|
||
| def intGen(min: Int, max: Int): Gen[Int] = Gen.choose(min, max) | ||
|
|
||
| def posIntGen(min: Int, max: Int): Gen[Int] = Gen.choose(min, max).suchThat(_ > 0) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why do we need this ? would intGen(1, max: Int) not work ? Or did it use 0 during shrinking ? 😞
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh I forgot about this issue. I don't know why but this test started failing consistently because it was generating negative numbers
| private def discardLastBlocks(startBlock: BigInt, blocksToDiscard: Int): Unit = { | ||
| private def discardLastBlocks(startBlock: BigInt, blocksToDiscard: Int): Unit = | ||
| // TODO (maybe ETCM-77): Manage last checkpoint number too | ||
| appStateStorage.putBestBlockNumber((startBlock - blocksToDiscard - 1).max(0)).commit() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why is saving to the storage removed here?🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
After I did all the changes I had a bunch of tests failing in FastSyncItSpec, because the best blocknumber was always a bit inferior than expected, and the issue was that line.
Now that we don't have the caches anymore and always save to storage that instructions was bringing issues.
|
|
||
| override def getLatestCheckpointBlockNumber(): BigInt = | ||
| blockchainMetadata.bestKnownBlockAndLatestCheckpoint.get().latestCheckpointNumber | ||
| override def getLatestCheckpointBlockNumber(): BigInt = appStateStorage.getLatestCheckpointBlockNumber() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if getBestBlockNumber() moved to the blockchainReader, then I think getLatestCheckpointBlockNumber() should also go there
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You are right. I created this ticket https://jira.iohk.io/browse/ETCM-1092
leo-bogastry
deleted the
feature/ETCM-1048-remove-bestKnownBlockAndLatestCheckpoint-cache
branch
4 participants
Description
Continuing the effort of removing the desynchronization between caches and RocksDB the
AtomicReference[BestBlockLatestCheckpointNumbers]used as cache was removed and replaced by persistence in RocksDB.Testing
This branch has been tested against mainnet, deployed in Staging and tested against the ERC20 tests. Report here: https://buildkite.com/input-output-hk/mantis-automation/builds/7468#_