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

Increase default grpc max message size #11983

Closed
mcdee opened this issue Feb 11, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #12072
Closed

Increase default grpc max message size #11983

mcdee opened this issue Feb 11, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #12072
Labels
Enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@mcdee
Copy link
Contributor

mcdee commented Feb 11, 2023

💎 Issue

Background

Default parameters for GRPC mean that standard REST API calls fail.

Description

Attempting to obtain the /validators endpoint from a prysm beacon node with minimal configuration returns:

{"message":"grpc: received message larger than max (70716973 vs. 4194304)","code":429}

It would be great if the max message size was set to something reasonable such that validators (and, ideally, state) could be retrieved from the node without requiring the more obscure parameters such as grpc-max-msg-size

@prestonvanloon prestonvanloon added the Enhancement New feature or request label Feb 22, 2023
@prestonvanloon
Copy link
Member

Perhaps grpc-max-msg-size can be some very large value.

@mcdee Do you have any suggested new default?

I am considering using max int64 (no limit) and logging an ominous warning when the operator has their gRPC host set to anything other than localhost. The point of this guard is to prevent someone from sending an impossibly large message that would overwhelm the server and/or client, but that shouldn't be a factor for individuals running with a local validator or advanced professionals with other safeguards in place.

If you're happy with the suggestion above, we can add this in quickly ahead of Capella.

@mcdee
Copy link
Contributor Author

mcdee commented Feb 23, 2023

Yes, I think that focus on the port configuration rather than the message size makes sense.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants