-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 802
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
Inefficiency of txpool during block production #4333
Comments
Worth mentioning async backing is around the corner and should fix with this as well. |
@eskimor This is using async backing already (@librelois to confirm) |
Yes I confirm that theses load tests where ran against a network with async backing and 6s blocktime. it seem's that the txpool is not spam resiliant, especially here: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/master/substrate/client/transaction-pool/src/revalidation.rs#L164 We revalidate 25% of the pending transactions at each block, that can be problematic where there is a lot of transactions, we should probably add an upper bound here. |
Your logs are partly confusing :D Do you run there 3 different nodes? :D
This is not really related to the issue here. Not should it fix this.
Transaction validation generally should be quite lightweight. Maybe some upper bound makes sense, but the tx pool is also not unbounded. If you change this: To
The transaction pool should be ready when you build a block. The overall tx pool behavior should improve with: #1202 |
Closing as I think this will be solved with #1202. |
When we have a lot of activity on Moonbeam, the txpool gets filled (as expected) over time, but that brings an issue for the block production. It happens often that the block production is going to wait on the txpool lock for a long time (130ms is the max IIRC), timeout and so produce empty blocks.
Would it be possible to pause the txpool ingest/revalidate prior to the block production ?
stagenet-collator-uko-txpool-debug.log
(I included logs of one of our test environment, search for block #7073338)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: