[Merged by Bors] - sync: use randomized peers from the set of 20 peers with good latency #5263
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
dshulyak
force-pushed
the
shuffle-peers
branch
from
4c8bdbb
to
0c85be5
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #5263 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 78.0% 78.0%
=======================================
Files 266 266
Lines 31977 31985 +8
=======================================
+ Hits 24964 24978 +14
+ Misses 5499 5493 -6
Partials 1514 1514 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
dshulyak
changed the title
fasmat
approved these changes
Nov 14, 2023
|
bors merge |
spacemesh-bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 14, 2023
…#5263) this change improves peer selection logic to split the load between 20 peers with good latency, additionally it avoids suboptimal behavior when node will stick to the same peer when it would benefit switching to another: - peer had the best latency in the past, but temporarily faulty due to being overloaded - peer fails to negotiate protocols, but we didn't collect latency info to prioritize peers yet in second case we should disconnect such peer, but our software registers protocol asynchronously so we actually may drop honest peer, therefore we only workaround such problem.
|
Pull request successfully merged into develop. Build succeeded: |
spacemesh-bors
bot
changed the title
dshulyak
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 15, 2023
…#5263) this change improves peer selection logic to split the load between 20 peers with good latency, additionally it avoids suboptimal behavior when node will stick to the same peer when it would benefit switching to another: - peer had the best latency in the past, but temporarily faulty due to being overloaded - peer fails to negotiate protocols, but we didn't collect latency info to prioritize peers yet in second case we should disconnect such peer, but our software registers protocol asynchronously so we actually may drop honest peer, therefore we only workaround such problem.
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.
this change improves peer selection logic to split the load between 20 peers with good latency,
additionally it avoids suboptimal behavior when node will stick to the same peer when it would benefit switching to another:
in second case we should disconnect such peer, but our software registers protocol asynchronously
so we actually may drop honest peer, therefore we only workaround such problem.