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

WIP: Storage, Bandwidth, and Processing requirements #115

Closed

Conversation

pipermerriam
Copy link
Member

ignore me

@pipermerriam pipermerriam marked this pull request as draft December 7, 2021 00:42

#### Base protocol message overhead

We expect most messages to use the regular MESSAGE type packet from discovery v5 which has 39 bytes of overhead.
Copy link
Collaborator

@kdeme kdeme Dec 9, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I know I should ignore the PR for the time being, but my eye fell on this part :)

I think the 39 bytes should be 71 bytes. Forgot the source id of 32 bytes perhaps?

We expect each TALKREQ message to contain:

- `request-id`: 4 bytes
- `protocol-id`: 2 bytes
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This could be anywhere between 1 and 8 bytes. Depends on implementations how many are used.

- `protocol-id`: 2 bytes
- `payload`: variable

Combined with the base overhead from the message packet this gives us 55 bytes of overhead per packet.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nitpick but there are also going to be a few bytes of overhead from the rlp encoding of the message.

@pipermerriam pipermerriam changed the title WIP: feasibility stuff WIP: Storage, Bandwidth, and Processing requirements Dec 9, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants