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

[Blocksync benchmarks]: Test plans for Latest and Historical BlockSync with variations in Topology #168

Closed
wants to merge 25 commits into from

Conversation

derrandz
Copy link
Contributor

@derrandz derrandz commented Feb 8, 2023

Overview

#164

Checklist

  • New and updated code has appropriate documentation
  • New and updated code has new and/or updated testing
  • Required CI checks are passing
  • Visual proof for any user facing features like CLI or documentation updates
  • Linked issues closed with keywords

@derrandz derrandz self-assigned this Feb 8, 2023
@derrandz derrandz added benchmark experiment Experiments to find out either the tech is suitable for our needs labels Feb 8, 2023
@derrandz derrandz force-pushed the blocksync-benchmarks branch from 8b495bc to 5c10a5d Compare February 13, 2023 16:21
@derrandz derrandz force-pushed the blocksync-benchmarks branch from e4fa529 to 178b239 Compare February 22, 2023 22:48
@derrandz
Copy link
Contributor Author

derrandz commented Mar 13, 2023

Closing in favor of:

  1. Fix: Disable validator discovery for single validator scenarios #199
  2. Block Sync: Syncing latest blocks using IPLD or Shrex #200
  3. Block Sync: Syncing historical blocks using IPLD or Shrex #202
  4. [TODO: add syncing latest with network partitions benchmarks PR]
  5. [TODO: add syncing historical with network partitions benchmarks PR]

@derrandz derrandz closed this Mar 13, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
benchmark experiment Experiments to find out either the tech is suitable for our needs
Projects
No open projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants