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

go/storage: reduce storage checkpointing #4561

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 11, 2022

Conversation

ptrus
Copy link
Member

@ptrus ptrus commented Mar 11, 2022

Should the consensus checkpoints also be disabled by default?

@ptrus ptrus force-pushed the ptrus/feature/reduce-checkpointing branch 2 times, most recently from b77f1e8 to 3f112cd Compare March 11, 2022 09:21
@kostko
Copy link
Member

kostko commented Mar 11, 2022

We can probably leave consensus checkpoints as they are since consensus state is fairly small.

@ptrus ptrus marked this pull request as ready for review March 11, 2022 09:42
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 11, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #4561 (3ee5ec7) into master (a626b0f) will decrease coverage by 0.10%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

❗ Current head 3ee5ec7 differs from pull request most recent head ad009aa. Consider uploading reports for the commit ad009aa to get more accurate results

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4561      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   66.97%   66.86%   -0.11%     
==========================================
  Files         425      424       -1     
  Lines       47960    47958       -2     
==========================================
- Hits        32119    32067      -52     
- Misses      11905    11939      +34     
- Partials     3936     3952      +16     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
go/common/random/random.go 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
go/consensus/tendermint/full/full.go 63.13% <100.00%> (-0.57%) ⬇️
go/storage/mkvs/checkpoint/checkpointer.go 82.51% <100.00%> (-0.19%) ⬇️
go/worker/storage/init.go 82.85% <100.00%> (ø)
go/worker/storage/worker.go 87.93% <100.00%> (ø)
go/oasis-node/cmd/common/metrics/disk.go 65.51% <0.00%> (-20.69%) ⬇️
...onsensus/tendermint/apps/beacon/state/state_vrf.go 73.33% <0.00%> (-13.34%) ⬇️
go/oasis-node/cmd/common/metrics/resource.go 84.00% <0.00%> (-8.00%) ⬇️
go/consensus/tendermint/full/services.go 77.69% <0.00%> (-7.70%) ⬇️
go/worker/common/committee/p2p.go 80.00% <0.00%> (-6.67%) ⬇️
... and 18 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update acb6bfc...ad009aa. Read the comment docs.

go/oasis-test-runner/oasis/args.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
go/storage/mkvs/checkpoint/checkpointer.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@ptrus ptrus force-pushed the ptrus/feature/reduce-checkpointing branch from 3f112cd to 3ee5ec7 Compare March 11, 2022 10:27
paused := false

for {
select {
case <-ctx.Done():
return
case <-ticker.C:
case <-time.After(random.GetRandomValueFromInterval(checkpointIntervalRandomizationFactor, rand.Float64(), c.cfg.CheckInterval)):
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could maybe move the inner value into a new variable initialized before the select statement to make it less cluttered.

@ptrus ptrus force-pushed the ptrus/feature/reduce-checkpointing branch from 3ee5ec7 to 3b195a3 Compare March 11, 2022 11:09
@ptrus ptrus enabled auto-merge March 11, 2022 11:09
@ptrus ptrus force-pushed the ptrus/feature/reduce-checkpointing branch from 3b195a3 to ad009aa Compare March 11, 2022 11:38
@ptrus ptrus merged commit 59b92eb into master Mar 11, 2022
@ptrus ptrus deleted the ptrus/feature/reduce-checkpointing branch March 11, 2022 12:37
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.

None yet

2 participants