support for multiple bakers #74
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
Previously we used to create 4 accounts always. We simplify by creating just one account per baker. As a consequence, all blocks are baked on priority zero from the beginning. We add a new parameter to mkchain `--number-of-bakers`, defaults to 1. If we pass a higher number n, it will create n bakers and n nodes baking for each baker. Bakers and nodes can be mapped using values.yaml: specify which node bakes for which address. This requires jq which requires a custom baking container. This also allowed me to remove helm hacks. We make a few assumptions for now: * every baking node is also a bootstrap node * the first baker's address is also the chain activator I tested in non-zerotier mode and zerotier mode with one create namespace and one invite namespace in the same minikube cluster; it works, but required me to remove the hard-coded nodePort for p2p.
harryttd
reviewed
Jan 21, 2021
harryttd
reviewed
Jan 21, 2021
| @@ -39,15 +39,15 @@ def main(): | |||
| if CHAIN_PARAMS["zerotier_in_use"]: | |||
| with open("/var/tezos/zerotier_data.json", "r") as f: | |||
| net_addr = json.load(f)[0]["assignedAddresses"][0].split("/")[0] | |||
| if bootstrap_peers == [] and "bootstrap" not in socket.gethostname(): | |||
| if bootstrap_peers == []: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is the logic here now that we want all bootstrap peers to know about each other? We should probably filter out the node's own ip like we talked about.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done in nicolasochem#1 that I will submit next as a PR.
harryttd
reviewed
Jan 21, 2021
harryttd
reviewed
Jan 21, 2021
| ) | ||
| exit(1) | ||
|
|
||
| bootstrap_accounts = [f"baker{n}" for n in range(args.number_of_bakers)] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
confirming: for now bootstrap accounts == bakers but we are going to change that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, it's changed in this branch: nicolasochem#1
harryttd
reviewed
Jan 21, 2021
harryttd
reviewed
Jan 21, 2021
harryttd
approved these changes
Jan 21, 2021
Closed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Previously we used to create 4 accounts always. We simplify by
creating just one account per baker. As a consequence, all blocks
are baked on priority zero from the beginning.
We add a new parameter to mkchain
--number-of-bakers, defaults tobaking for each baker.
Bakers and nodes can be mapped using values.yaml: specify which node
bakes for which address. This requires jq which requires a custom
baking container. This also allowed me to remove helm hacks.
We make a few assumptions for now:
I tested in non-zerotier mode and zerotier mode with one create
namespace and one invite namespace in the same minikube cluster; it
works, but required me to remove the hard-coded nodePort for p2p.