SIMD-0046: Optimistic cluster restart automation #46
Conversation
Co-authored-by: mvines <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: mvines <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: mvines <[email protected]>
…-improvement-documents into smart-restart-proposal
proposals/0024-repair-and-restart.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| So after a validator sees that 75% of the validators received 75% of the votes, | ||
| wait for 10 more minutes so that the message it sent out have propagated, then | ||
| restart from the Heaviest slot everyone agreed on. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
From our last call I was thinking once each validator has figured out the heaviest fork and repaired up to the highest oc slot, the validator would:
- Issue a "hard fork" at the highest oc slot, which also changes the gossip shred version
- Execute the existing "--wait-for-supermajority" logic (ie, purge all slots above the highest oc slot, wait for 80%)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Changed. I think we probably. should wait for 75% here because we assume 5% could be non-conforming.
proposals/0024-repair-and-restart.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| We calculate "enough" stake as follows. When there are 80% validators joining | ||
| the restart, assuming 5% restarted validators can make mistakes in voting, any | ||
| block with more than 67% - 5% - (100-80)% = 42% could potentially be |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't understand this calculation.
What if the other 100% - 42% = 58% pick some other block?
Why should the minority 42% block be optimistically confirmed?
Why should ever a block with less than 67% vote be optimistically confirmed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The goal here is to prevent false negative (if a slot was oc'ed before the restart, you must pick it here), not to prevent false positive (it's okay if we pick a slot here which isn't oc'ed). Because when we select Heaviest later we should see the competing fork and count the votes accordingly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
prolly add the motivation and justification for these values to the document
proposals/0024-repair-and-restart.md
Outdated
| 2.1 If vote_on_child + stake_on_validators_not_in_restart >= 62%, pick child. | ||
| For example, if 80% validators are in restart, child has 42% votes, then | ||
| 42 + (100-80) = 62%, pick child. 62% is chosen instead of 67% because 5% | ||
| could make the wrong votes. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
similarly here, I am not sure why it is safe to go below 67%?!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The goal here is to prevent false negative at all costs and it's okay to have false positive. Let's say X is the first block having only 62% but not 67%, we know if 75% of the validators decide to pick this fork, it will be instantly oc'ed and we won't kick another oc'ed slot out. Does that make sense?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
similarly, add the motivation and justification in the doc
Co-authored-by: mvines <[email protected]>
…-improvement-documents into smart-restart-proposal
|
@t-nelson Want to give the oldest open SIMD another look? |
No description provided.