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

Split Sync into Two Different Services #388

Closed
nisdas opened this issue Aug 8, 2018 · 3 comments
Closed

Split Sync into Two Different Services #388

nisdas opened this issue Aug 8, 2018 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
Enhancement New feature or request
Milestone

Comments

@nisdas
Copy link
Member

nisdas commented Aug 8, 2018

Currently the sync service handles both the initial sync and regular sync. As our implementation grows our initial sync will become more complicated as we start to factor in security concerns, etc . Also the initial sync and regular sync use different methods and fields.

A pr for this will create a separate struct/service for initial sync and regular sync and also will ensure that only one service will be run at a time. Ex: If the node has no stored state, then the initial sync is run. During that period regular sync is on 'pause' , when initial sync is done, the regular sync resumes.

@nisdas nisdas added Enhancement New feature or request Intermediate labels Aug 8, 2018
@nisdas nisdas added this to the Ruby milestone Aug 8, 2018
@nisdas nisdas added this to To do in Beacon Chain via automation Aug 8, 2018
@nisdas nisdas changed the title Split sync into two different services Split Sync into Two Different Services Aug 8, 2018
@rauljordan
Copy link
Contributor

Agree with this - same pattern as fetcher/downloader in geth. Perhaps we can do these as subpackages within the syncer package? Maybe call it "announcements" / "chainsync" ? I'd love for us to opt for something easier to understand. @nisdas can you update the sync design doc to include these two items?

@rawfalafel
Copy link
Contributor

I can take this one.

Agree that naming is key. I'm having problems thinking of a good concise name.

@rawfalafel
Copy link
Contributor

Resolved with #404

Beacon Chain automation moved this from To do to Done Aug 22, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Enhancement New feature or request
Projects
No open projects
Beacon Chain
  
Done
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants