Bump collation in_peers to 300 for the experimental collator protocol#11762
Bump collation in_peers to 300 for the experimental collator protocol#11762
in_peers to 300 for the experimental collator protocol#11762Conversation
|
/cmd prdoc --audience node_dev --bump patch |
tdimitrov
added
T0-node
…e_dev --bump patch'
… so that we have got extra buffer for connection management
|
|
||
| /// Maximum allowed incoming connection streams for validator nodes on the collation protocol | ||
| /// when the experimental collator protocol is enabled. | ||
| pub const MAX_AUTHORITY_INCOMING_STREAMS_EXPERIMENTAL_COLLATOR_PROTO: u32 = 310; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
jost noting: without some testing it's difficult to know how much bigger this hard limit needs to be than the 300 soft limit
| peerset_protocol_names: &PeerSetProtocolNames, | ||
| metrics: NotificationMetrics, | ||
| peer_store_handle: Arc<dyn PeerStoreProvider>, | ||
| experimental_collator_protocol: bool, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I just realized this is a breaking change but the alternative is to bump MAX_AUTHORITY_INCOMING_STREAMS for both implementations which I prefer not to do.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you could also add a new function and keep the old one untouched
There was a problem hiding this comment.
but do we really need this backported?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you could also add a new function and keep the old one untouched
We could, but is it really worth it?
but do we really need this backported?
Yes, we'll be deploying from stable2603, so all revamp changes should be there.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, we'll be deploying from stable2603, so all revamp changes should be there.
I think we're going to do a one-off stable2604 release soon
We could, but is it really worth it?
what's the alternative? bump it to 310 for all? I think that could be fine also
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Didn't know about the new release. In that case we can skip backporting.
what's the alternative?
well 😊 hack the CI checks and merge breaking change. Won't be the first time we do it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what's the alternative? bump it to 310 for all? I think that could be fine also
Yeah. I'd go for this to keep things simple. I don't see any good reason why not.
| peerset_protocol_names: &PeerSetProtocolNames, | ||
| metrics: NotificationMetrics, | ||
| peer_store_handle: Arc<dyn PeerStoreProvider>, | ||
| experimental_collator_protocol: bool, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what's the alternative? bump it to 310 for all? I think that could be fine also
Yeah. I'd go for this to keep things simple. I don't see any good reason why not.
|
Review required! Latest push from author must always be reviewed |
tdimitrov
removed
the
T8-polkadot
…ol (#11762) Sync the values of `CONNECTED_PEERS_PARA_LIMIT` in experimental collator protocol and `MAX_AUTHORITY_INCOMING_STREAMS` in peer_set. --------- Co-authored-by: cmd[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
3 participants
Sync the values of
CONNECTED_PEERS_PARA_LIMITin experimental collator protocol andMAX_AUTHORITY_INCOMING_STREAMSin peer_set.