Skip to content

Conversation

@harding
Copy link
Collaborator

@harding harding commented Aug 19, 2018

Note: I'll be AFK most of the day tomorrow (Monday), so please push changes without waiting to hear back from me. I'll review later in the evening (EDT) when I get home.

@jnewbery
Copy link
Contributor

There was an error in last week's newsletter:

Bitcoin Core #13925: increases the maximum number of file descriptors Bitcoin Core’s internal database can use, which can allow more file descriptors to be used for network connections. If you’ve modified Bitcoin Core to accept more than 117 incoming connections, you may see an additional increase in the number of connections after upgrading past this merge. (Note: we don’t recommend increasing the default unless you have a special need.)

bitcoin/bitcoin#13925 was a merge of bitcoin-core/leveldb-subtree#19, which increased the max number of mmaps, not the max number of file descriptors. How do people feel about an errata section?

(thanks to @sdaftuar for pointing this out)

@harding
Copy link
Collaborator Author

harding commented Aug 20, 2018

Both mmap(2) and select(2) make file descriptors available per the docs and (IIUC) ldb was falling back on select when it hit its internal maximum limit on mmap. By increasing ldb's internal mmap max, it can now open more file descriptors than before (still falling back on select, although that should be unnecessary now for a bunch more years hopefully). So I think it's correct to say, "increases the maximum number of file descriptors Bitcoin Core's internal database can use".

The consequence of this change is that ldb shouldn't ever call select during normal operation and won't use any part of select's glibc-imposed per-process maximum fd count, allowing other parts of bitcoind that are designed around select to make use of that capacity. So I also think it's correct to say, "which can allow more file descriptors to be used for network connections."

Even if the correct way to phrase that was to say "more mmaps" or something, I'd suggest just editing the archive copy of the newsletter rather than printing a correction as long as the conclusion is correct. I doubt anyone besides glibc cares how we open files. :-) (But if the conclusion is in error, I'm more than willing to write the Corrections section myself.)

@jnewbery
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for the excellent explanation David! I don't think there's any need to update newsletter 8.

@moneyball
Copy link
Contributor

I'm on vacation this week + don't have anything at the ready for dashboard section. I suggest we a) omit or b) add standard "low fees" bullet or c) if someone wants to go find an actionable nugget, go for it.

@moneyball
Copy link
Contributor

ACK

major release such as this, but each RC can theoretically be the last
RC, so we encourage you to test as early as possible.

## Dashboard items
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No dashboard this week. Remove!

layout: newsletter
lang: en
---
This week's newsletter includes the usual dashboard and action items,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No dashboard this week. Remove "dashboard and ".

- **Output script descriptors enhancements** being worked on by
Pieter Wuille. The basic idea for this was described in
[Newsletter #5][news5 news] but Wuille is investigating adding
support for the ability to "import `and(xpub/...,or(xpub/...,xpub/...))`
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think using the words "nested and/or/threshold constructions" as Pieter did in IRC is a clearer way to introduce this (but maybe that's just a matter of personal taste)

measurements by Naumenko). Maxwell is also working on making it
possible for a newly-started (or long-disconnected) node to
efficiently sync its mempool with its peers using this same basic
mechanism, reducing the requirement for small independent miners to
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd lean towards removing everything after "mechanism"

percentile feerates for a historic block with the `getblockstats` RPC
introduced to the master development branch a couple months ago.

- [LND #1693][] allows LND's autopilot funding mechanism to optionally
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As discussed, the primary motivation for this PR is to allow autopilot to open many channels in parallel, since it doesn't need to wait for one channel to be confirmed before using the change to open the next channel.

@harding harding force-pushed the 2018-08-21-newsletter branch from 5da9cb3 to 321a501 Compare August 20, 2018 22:42
@harding
Copy link
Collaborator Author

harding commented Aug 20, 2018

I believe all @jnewbery feedback is addressed in 321a501. Thanks for the excellent feedback!

@jnewbery
Copy link
Contributor

ACK 321a501

@jnewbery jnewbery force-pushed the 2018-08-21-newsletter branch from 321a501 to 1abcbfe Compare August 21, 2018 13:30
@jnewbery
Copy link
Contributor

squashed 321a501 to 1abcbfe

@jnewbery jnewbery merged commit a4325df into bitcoinops:master Aug 21, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants