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

Mode to sync chain first + index later #52

Open
tzarebczan opened this issue Dec 7, 2020 · 1 comment
Open

Mode to sync chain first + index later #52

tzarebczan opened this issue Dec 7, 2020 · 1 comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@tzarebczan
Copy link

I've been playing around with Rosetta for LBRY, and I've noticed I have lots of trouble on the initial sync + index when we start getting some larger blocks come in. I did see a recent discussion around improvements, but I haven't tried them yet (just saw them today).

Logs when this happens - almost looks like it fails to process a block in time, and then logs that block on shutdown along with the http request errors:

ss=0.005344 cache=2073.6MiB(5280827txo) IBD
2020-12-07T12:29:34Z UpdateTip: new best=2e51cbf8dfbd8820dd3bbdd55d1097c625414b7b8cb53190890eddfb135e1ab5 height=837104 version=0x20000000 log2_work=73.933872 txb=602 tx=20026401 date='2020-09-26T17:06:41Z' progress=0.005351 cache=2075.2MiB(5285550txo) IBD
2020-12-07T12:29:50Z UpdateTip: new best=6d6bfe8ca9db93626e88cc19e8ace45738730679995a0cf99bdba003b6cf19bb height=837117 version=0x20000000 log2_work=73.933907 txb=177 tx=20028012 date='2020-09-26T17:39:32Z' progress=0.005353 cache=2075.6MiB(5287003txo) IBD
2020-12-07T12:40:53Z tor: Thread interrupt
2020-12-07T12:40:53Z addcon thread exit
2020-12-07T12:40:53Z torcontrol thread exit
2020-12-07T12:40:53Z opencon thread exit
2020-12-07T12:40:53Z Shutdown: In progress...
2020-12-07T12:40:53Z net thread exit
2020-12-07T13:05:39Z UpdateTip: new best=7bfa4f19d91c3ed3dfa304ee3e82e2d7765bd8335d7802bcc24ad0e19ac02945 height=837138 version=0x20000000 log2_work=73.933963 txb=120 tx=20029990 date='2020-09-26T18:35:35Z' progress=0.005355 cache=57.7MiB(0txo) IBD
2020-12-07T13:05:39Z msghand thread exit
2020-12-07T13:05:39Z ~HTTPRequest: Unhandled request
2020-12-07T13:05:39Z ~HTTPRequest: Unhandled request
2020-12-07T13:05:39Z ~HTTPRequest: Unhandled request
2020-12-07T13:05:39Z ~HTTPRequest: Unhandled request
2020-12-07T13:05:39Z ~HTTPRequest: Unhandled request
2020-12-07T13:05:39Z ~HTTPRequest: Unhandled request
2020-12-07T13:05:39Z ~HTTPRequest: Unhandled request
2020-12-07T13:05:39Z ~HTTPRequest: Unhandled request
2020-12-07T13:05:39Z ~HTTPRequest: Unhandled request
2020-12-07T13:05:39Z ~HTTPRequest: Unhandled request
2020-12-07T13:05:39Z ~HTTPRequest: Unhandled request
2020-12-07T13:05:39Z ~HTTPRequest: Unhandled request
2020-12-07T13:05:39Z ~HTTPRequest: Unhandled request
2020-12-07T13:05:39Z ~HTTPRequest: Unhandled request
2020-12-07T13:05:39Z scheduler thread interrupt
2020-12-07T13:05:39Z Dumped mempool: 0.001684s to copy, 0.000714s to dump
2020-12-07T13:05:40Z Shutdown: done

Would it make sense to have a mode that lets the blockchain sync up fully before processing the blocks?

@tzarebczan tzarebczan added the enhancement New feature or request label Dec 7, 2020
@patrick-ogrady
Copy link
Contributor

patrick-ogrady commented Dec 10, 2020

I've been playing around with Rosetta for LBRY

🚀 Very cool!

I did see a recent discussion around improvements, but I haven't tried them yet (just saw them today).

We just released a big upgrade yesterday (unfortunately requires you to re-sync) but should make things a lot faster!

Would it make sense to have a mode that lets the blockchain sync up fully before processing the blocks?

I think that is definitely an interesting idea (especially for folks running things on smaller boxes). I'd definitely review a PR that added this functionality.

Just curious, what type of box are you using (CPU, RAM, SSD/HDD)?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants