[Merged by Bors] - Make re-org strat more cautious and add more config #4151
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
paulhauner
approved these changes
Apr 13, 2023
|
bors r+ |
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 13, 2023
## Proposed Changes This change attempts to prevent failed re-orgs by: 1. Lowering the re-org cutoff from 2s to 1s. This is informed by a failed re-org attempted by @yorickdowne's node. The failed block was requested in the 1.5-2s window due to a Vouch failure, and failed to propagate to the majority of the network before the attestation deadline at 4s. 2. Allow users to adjust their re-org cutoff depending on observed network conditions and their risk profile. The static 2 second cutoff was too rigid. 3. Add a `--proposer-reorg-disallowed-offsets` flag which can be used to prohibit reorgs at certain slots. This is intended to help workaround an issue whereby reorging blocks at slot 1 are currently taking ~1.6s to propagate on gossip rather than ~500ms. This is suspected to be due to a cache miss in current versions of Prysm, which should be fixed in their next release. ## Additional Info I'm of two minds about removing the `shuffling_stable` check which checks for blocks at slot 0 in the epoch. If we removed it users would be able to configure Lighthouse to try reorging at slot 0, which likely wouldn't work very well due to interactions with the proposer index cache. I think we could leave it for now and revisit it later.
|
Pull request successfully merged into unstable. Build succeeded:
|
ghost
pushed a commit
to oone-world/lighthouse
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 13, 2023
## Proposed Changes This change attempts to prevent failed re-orgs by: 1. Lowering the re-org cutoff from 2s to 1s. This is informed by a failed re-org attempted by @yorickdowne's node. The failed block was requested in the 1.5-2s window due to a Vouch failure, and failed to propagate to the majority of the network before the attestation deadline at 4s. 2. Allow users to adjust their re-org cutoff depending on observed network conditions and their risk profile. The static 2 second cutoff was too rigid. 3. Add a `--proposer-reorg-disallowed-offsets` flag which can be used to prohibit reorgs at certain slots. This is intended to help workaround an issue whereby reorging blocks at slot 1 are currently taking ~1.6s to propagate on gossip rather than ~500ms. This is suspected to be due to a cache miss in current versions of Prysm, which should be fixed in their next release. ## Additional Info I'm of two minds about removing the `shuffling_stable` check which checks for blocks at slot 0 in the epoch. If we removed it users would be able to configure Lighthouse to try reorging at slot 0, which likely wouldn't work very well due to interactions with the proposer index cache. I think we could leave it for now and revisit it later.
Woodpile37
pushed a commit
to Woodpile37/lighthouse
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2024
## Proposed Changes This change attempts to prevent failed re-orgs by: 1. Lowering the re-org cutoff from 2s to 1s. This is informed by a failed re-org attempted by @yorickdowne's node. The failed block was requested in the 1.5-2s window due to a Vouch failure, and failed to propagate to the majority of the network before the attestation deadline at 4s. 2. Allow users to adjust their re-org cutoff depending on observed network conditions and their risk profile. The static 2 second cutoff was too rigid. 3. Add a `--proposer-reorg-disallowed-offsets` flag which can be used to prohibit reorgs at certain slots. This is intended to help workaround an issue whereby reorging blocks at slot 1 are currently taking ~1.6s to propagate on gossip rather than ~500ms. This is suspected to be due to a cache miss in current versions of Prysm, which should be fixed in their next release. ## Additional Info I'm of two minds about removing the `shuffling_stable` check which checks for blocks at slot 0 in the epoch. If we removed it users would be able to configure Lighthouse to try reorging at slot 0, which likely wouldn't work very well due to interactions with the proposer index cache. I think we could leave it for now and revisit it later.
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.
Proposed Changes
This change attempts to prevent failed re-orgs by:
--proposer-reorg-disallowed-offsetsflag which can be used to prohibit reorgs at certain slots. This is intended to help workaround an issue whereby reorging blocks at slot 1 are currently taking ~1.6s to propagate on gossip rather than ~500ms. This is suspected to be due to a cache miss in current versions of Prysm, which should be fixed in their next release.Additional Info
I'm of two minds about removing the
shuffling_stablecheck which checks for blocks at slot 0 in the epoch. If we removed it users would be able to configure Lighthouse to try reorging at slot 0, which likely wouldn't work very well due to interactions with the proposer index cache. I think we could leave it for now and revisit it later.