[Merged by Bors] - Maintain trusted peers #4159
Closed
Conversation
This file contains 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
divagant-martian
added
waiting-on-author
AgeManning
added
ready-for-review
|
bors r+ |
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 1, 2023
## Issue Addressed #4150 ## Proposed Changes Maintain trusted peers in the pruning logic. ~~In principle the changes here are not necessary as a trusted peer has a max score (100) and all other peers can have at most 0 (because we don't implement positive scores). This means that we should never prune trusted peers unless we have more trusted peers than the target peer count.~~ This change shifts this logic to explicitly never prune trusted peers which I expect is the intuitive behaviour. ~~I suspect the issue in #4150 arises when a trusted peer disconnects from us for one reason or another and then we remove that peer from our peerdb as it becomes stale. When it re-connects at some large time later, it is no longer a trusted peer.~~ Currently we do disconnect trusted peers, and this PR corrects this to maintain trusted peers in the pruning logic. As suggested in #4150 we maintain trusted peers in the db and thus we remember them even if they disconnect from us.
|
Build failed: |
|
bors retry |
michaelsproul
added
ready-for-merge
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 3, 2023
## Issue Addressed #4150 ## Proposed Changes Maintain trusted peers in the pruning logic. ~~In principle the changes here are not necessary as a trusted peer has a max score (100) and all other peers can have at most 0 (because we don't implement positive scores). This means that we should never prune trusted peers unless we have more trusted peers than the target peer count.~~ This change shifts this logic to explicitly never prune trusted peers which I expect is the intuitive behaviour. ~~I suspect the issue in #4150 arises when a trusted peer disconnects from us for one reason or another and then we remove that peer from our peerdb as it becomes stale. When it re-connects at some large time later, it is no longer a trusted peer.~~ Currently we do disconnect trusted peers, and this PR corrects this to maintain trusted peers in the pruning logic. As suggested in #4150 we maintain trusted peers in the db and thus we remember them even if they disconnect from us.
|
bors r- |
|
This PR was included in a batch that was canceled, it will be automatically retried |
|
Canceled. |
|
bors r+ |
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 3, 2023
## Issue Addressed #4150 ## Proposed Changes Maintain trusted peers in the pruning logic. ~~In principle the changes here are not necessary as a trusted peer has a max score (100) and all other peers can have at most 0 (because we don't implement positive scores). This means that we should never prune trusted peers unless we have more trusted peers than the target peer count.~~ This change shifts this logic to explicitly never prune trusted peers which I expect is the intuitive behaviour. ~~I suspect the issue in #4150 arises when a trusted peer disconnects from us for one reason or another and then we remove that peer from our peerdb as it becomes stale. When it re-connects at some large time later, it is no longer a trusted peer.~~ Currently we do disconnect trusted peers, and this PR corrects this to maintain trusted peers in the pruning logic. As suggested in #4150 we maintain trusted peers in the db and thus we remember them even if they disconnect from us.
|
Pull request successfully merged into unstable. Build succeeded! The publicly hosted instance of bors-ng is deprecated and will go away soon. If you want to self-host your own instance, instructions are here. If you want to switch to GitHub's built-in merge queue, visit their help page.
|
bors
bot
changed the title
ghost
pushed a commit
to oone-world/lighthouse
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 13, 2023
## Issue Addressed sigp#4150 ## Proposed Changes Maintain trusted peers in the pruning logic. ~~In principle the changes here are not necessary as a trusted peer has a max score (100) and all other peers can have at most 0 (because we don't implement positive scores). This means that we should never prune trusted peers unless we have more trusted peers than the target peer count.~~ This change shifts this logic to explicitly never prune trusted peers which I expect is the intuitive behaviour. ~~I suspect the issue in sigp#4150 arises when a trusted peer disconnects from us for one reason or another and then we remove that peer from our peerdb as it becomes stale. When it re-connects at some large time later, it is no longer a trusted peer.~~ Currently we do disconnect trusted peers, and this PR corrects this to maintain trusted peers in the pruning logic. As suggested in sigp#4150 we maintain trusted peers in the db and thus we remember them even if they disconnect from us.
Woodpile37
pushed a commit
to Woodpile37/lighthouse
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2024
## Issue Addressed sigp#4150 ## Proposed Changes Maintain trusted peers in the pruning logic. ~~In principle the changes here are not necessary as a trusted peer has a max score (100) and all other peers can have at most 0 (because we don't implement positive scores). This means that we should never prune trusted peers unless we have more trusted peers than the target peer count.~~ This change shifts this logic to explicitly never prune trusted peers which I expect is the intuitive behaviour. ~~I suspect the issue in sigp#4150 arises when a trusted peer disconnects from us for one reason or another and then we remove that peer from our peerdb as it becomes stale. When it re-connects at some large time later, it is no longer a trusted peer.~~ Currently we do disconnect trusted peers, and this PR corrects this to maintain trusted peers in the pruning logic. As suggested in sigp#4150 we maintain trusted peers in the db and thus we remember them even if they disconnect from us.
Woodpile37
pushed a commit
to Woodpile37/lighthouse
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2024
## Issue Addressed sigp#4150 ## Proposed Changes Maintain trusted peers in the pruning logic. ~~In principle the changes here are not necessary as a trusted peer has a max score (100) and all other peers can have at most 0 (because we don't implement positive scores). This means that we should never prune trusted peers unless we have more trusted peers than the target peer count.~~ This change shifts this logic to explicitly never prune trusted peers which I expect is the intuitive behaviour. ~~I suspect the issue in sigp#4150 arises when a trusted peer disconnects from us for one reason or another and then we remove that peer from our peerdb as it becomes stale. When it re-connects at some large time later, it is no longer a trusted peer.~~ Currently we do disconnect trusted peers, and this PR corrects this to maintain trusted peers in the pruning logic. As suggested in sigp#4150 we maintain trusted peers in the db and thus we remember them even if they disconnect from us.
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.
Issue Addressed
#4150
Proposed Changes
Maintain trusted peers in the pruning logic.
In principle the changes here are not necessary as a trusted peer has a max score (100) and all other peers can have at most 0 (because we don't implement positive scores). This means that we should never prune trusted peers unless we have more trusted peers than the target peer count.This change shifts this logic to explicitly never prune trusted peers which I expect is the intuitive behaviour.
I suspect the issue in #4150 arises when a trusted peer disconnects from us for one reason or another and then we remove that peer from our peerdb as it becomes stale. When it re-connects at some large time later, it is no longer a trusted peer.Currently we do disconnect trusted peers, and this PR corrects this to maintain trusted peers in the pruning logic.
As suggested in #4150 we maintain trusted peers in the db and thus we remember them even if they disconnect from us.