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

Elastic Scaling: Guide Changes #3699

Open
eskimor opened this issue Mar 14, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Elastic Scaling: Guide Changes #3699

eskimor opened this issue Mar 14, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@eskimor
Copy link
Member

eskimor commented Mar 14, 2024

Document elastic scaling changes:

  1. Core handling in general
  2. Provisioner changes
  3. Runtime dependency tracking
  4. Collator protocol changes
  5. Prospective Parachains changes: Fork + Cycle support removal + support chains with holes.
  6. Backing changes
@eskimor eskimor converted this from a draft issue Mar 14, 2024
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue May 13, 2024
Reworks prospective-parachains so that we allow a number of unconnected
candidates (for which we don't know the parent candidate yet). Needed
for elastic scaling:
#3541. Without this,
candidate B will not be validated and backed until candidate A (its
parent) is validated and a backing statement reaches the validator.

Due to the high complexity of the subsystem, I rewrote parts of it so
that we don't concern ourselves with candidates which form cycles or
which form parachain forks. We now have "Fragment chains" instead of
"Fragment trees". This greatly simplifies some of the code and is a
compromise we can make. We just need to make sure that cycle-producing
parachains don't brick the relay chain and that fork-producing
parachains can still make some progress (on one core at least). The only
forks that are allowed are those on the relay chain, obviously.

Unconnected candidates are kept in the `CandidateStorage` and whenever a
new candidate is introduced, we try to repopulate the chain with as many
candidates as we can.

Also fixes #3219

Guide changes will be done as part of:
#3699

TODOs:

- [x] see if we can replace the `Cow` over the candidate commitments
with an `Arc` over the entire `ProspectiveCandidate`. It's only being
overwritten in unit tests. We can work around that.
- [x] finish fragment_chain unit tests
- [x] add more prospective-parachains subsystem tests
- [x] test with zombienet what happens if a parachain is creating cycles
(it should not brick the relay chain).
- [x] test with zombienet a parachain that is creating forks. it should
keep producing blocks from time to time (one bad collator should not DOS
the parachain, even if throughput decreases)
- [x] add some more logs and metrics
- [x] add prdoc and remove the "silent" label

---------

Signed-off-by: Andrei Sandu <andrei-mihail@parity.io>
Co-authored-by: Andrei Sandu <andrei-mihail@parity.io>
hitchhooker pushed a commit to ibp-network/polkadot-sdk that referenced this issue Jun 5, 2024
Reworks prospective-parachains so that we allow a number of unconnected
candidates (for which we don't know the parent candidate yet). Needed
for elastic scaling:
paritytech#3541. Without this,
candidate B will not be validated and backed until candidate A (its
parent) is validated and a backing statement reaches the validator.

Due to the high complexity of the subsystem, I rewrote parts of it so
that we don't concern ourselves with candidates which form cycles or
which form parachain forks. We now have "Fragment chains" instead of
"Fragment trees". This greatly simplifies some of the code and is a
compromise we can make. We just need to make sure that cycle-producing
parachains don't brick the relay chain and that fork-producing
parachains can still make some progress (on one core at least). The only
forks that are allowed are those on the relay chain, obviously.

Unconnected candidates are kept in the `CandidateStorage` and whenever a
new candidate is introduced, we try to repopulate the chain with as many
candidates as we can.

Also fixes paritytech#3219

Guide changes will be done as part of:
paritytech#3699

TODOs:

- [x] see if we can replace the `Cow` over the candidate commitments
with an `Arc` over the entire `ProspectiveCandidate`. It's only being
overwritten in unit tests. We can work around that.
- [x] finish fragment_chain unit tests
- [x] add more prospective-parachains subsystem tests
- [x] test with zombienet what happens if a parachain is creating cycles
(it should not brick the relay chain).
- [x] test with zombienet a parachain that is creating forks. it should
keep producing blocks from time to time (one bad collator should not DOS
the parachain, even if throughput decreases)
- [x] add some more logs and metrics
- [x] add prdoc and remove the "silent" label

---------

Signed-off-by: Andrei Sandu <andrei-mihail@parity.io>
Co-authored-by: Andrei Sandu <andrei-mihail@parity.io>
liuchengxu pushed a commit to liuchengxu/polkadot-sdk that referenced this issue Jun 19, 2024
Reworks prospective-parachains so that we allow a number of unconnected
candidates (for which we don't know the parent candidate yet). Needed
for elastic scaling:
paritytech#3541. Without this,
candidate B will not be validated and backed until candidate A (its
parent) is validated and a backing statement reaches the validator.

Due to the high complexity of the subsystem, I rewrote parts of it so
that we don't concern ourselves with candidates which form cycles or
which form parachain forks. We now have "Fragment chains" instead of
"Fragment trees". This greatly simplifies some of the code and is a
compromise we can make. We just need to make sure that cycle-producing
parachains don't brick the relay chain and that fork-producing
parachains can still make some progress (on one core at least). The only
forks that are allowed are those on the relay chain, obviously.

Unconnected candidates are kept in the `CandidateStorage` and whenever a
new candidate is introduced, we try to repopulate the chain with as many
candidates as we can.

Also fixes paritytech#3219

Guide changes will be done as part of:
paritytech#3699

TODOs:

- [x] see if we can replace the `Cow` over the candidate commitments
with an `Arc` over the entire `ProspectiveCandidate`. It's only being
overwritten in unit tests. We can work around that.
- [x] finish fragment_chain unit tests
- [x] add more prospective-parachains subsystem tests
- [x] test with zombienet what happens if a parachain is creating cycles
(it should not brick the relay chain).
- [x] test with zombienet a parachain that is creating forks. it should
keep producing blocks from time to time (one bad collator should not DOS
the parachain, even if throughput decreases)
- [x] add some more logs and metrics
- [x] add prdoc and remove the "silent" label

---------

Signed-off-by: Andrei Sandu <andrei-mihail@parity.io>
Co-authored-by: Andrei Sandu <andrei-mihail@parity.io>
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jul 9, 2024
…scaling (#4983)

The update is tracked by:
#3699

However, this is not worth doing at this point since it will change in
the future for phase 2 of the implementation.

Still, it's useful to let people know that the information is not the
most up to date.
TomaszWaszczyk pushed a commit to TomaszWaszczyk/polkadot-sdk that referenced this issue Jul 13, 2024
…scaling (paritytech#4983)

The update is tracked by:
paritytech#3699

However, this is not worth doing at this point since it will change in
the future for phase 2 of the implementation.

Still, it's useful to let people know that the information is not the
most up to date.
TarekkMA pushed a commit to moonbeam-foundation/polkadot-sdk that referenced this issue Aug 2, 2024
Reworks prospective-parachains so that we allow a number of unconnected
candidates (for which we don't know the parent candidate yet). Needed
for elastic scaling:
paritytech#3541. Without this,
candidate B will not be validated and backed until candidate A (its
parent) is validated and a backing statement reaches the validator.

Due to the high complexity of the subsystem, I rewrote parts of it so
that we don't concern ourselves with candidates which form cycles or
which form parachain forks. We now have "Fragment chains" instead of
"Fragment trees". This greatly simplifies some of the code and is a
compromise we can make. We just need to make sure that cycle-producing
parachains don't brick the relay chain and that fork-producing
parachains can still make some progress (on one core at least). The only
forks that are allowed are those on the relay chain, obviously.

Unconnected candidates are kept in the `CandidateStorage` and whenever a
new candidate is introduced, we try to repopulate the chain with as many
candidates as we can.

Also fixes paritytech#3219

Guide changes will be done as part of:
paritytech#3699

TODOs:

- [x] see if we can replace the `Cow` over the candidate commitments
with an `Arc` over the entire `ProspectiveCandidate`. It's only being
overwritten in unit tests. We can work around that.
- [x] finish fragment_chain unit tests
- [x] add more prospective-parachains subsystem tests
- [x] test with zombienet what happens if a parachain is creating cycles
(it should not brick the relay chain).
- [x] test with zombienet a parachain that is creating forks. it should
keep producing blocks from time to time (one bad collator should not DOS
the parachain, even if throughput decreases)
- [x] add some more logs and metrics
- [x] add prdoc and remove the "silent" label

---------

Signed-off-by: Andrei Sandu <andrei-mihail@parity.io>
Co-authored-by: Andrei Sandu <andrei-mihail@parity.io>
TarekkMA pushed a commit to moonbeam-foundation/polkadot-sdk that referenced this issue Aug 2, 2024
…scaling (paritytech#4983)

The update is tracked by:
paritytech#3699

However, this is not worth doing at this point since it will change in
the future for phase 2 of the implementation.

Still, it's useful to let people know that the information is not the
most up to date.
@sandreim
Copy link
Contributor

@alindima didn't we update all of this for the MVP ?

@alindima
Copy link
Contributor

@alindima didn't we update all of this for the MVP ?

nope

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Backlog
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants