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

Layered TxPool Never evicts local transactions and they should be given priority. #5829

Closed
non-fungible-nelson opened this issue Aug 30, 2023 · 5 comments · Fixed by #5959
Closed
Assignees
Labels
mainnet non mainnet (private networks) not related to mainnet features - covers privacy, permissioning, IBFT2, QBFT TeamChupa GH issues worked on by Chupacabara Team

Comments

@non-fungible-nelson
Copy link
Contributor

non-fungible-nelson commented Aug 30, 2023

Description

As an user, I want my local transactions to live in my mempool indefinitely, regardless of the size of the executable pool.

Acceptance Criteria

  • Local designated transactions are long lived and stay in at least the third tier indefinitely
  • Local transactions are given priority if they respect block building rules.
@non-fungible-nelson non-fungible-nelson added mainnet non mainnet (private networks) not related to mainnet features - covers privacy, permissioning, IBFT2, QBFT labels Aug 30, 2023
@ahamlat
Copy link
Contributor

ahamlat commented Sep 6, 2023

This may have an impact on memory usage, not use we can keep indefinitely local transactions, we may need to limit the size of the transaction pool to avoid a besu crash or OOM killer event.

@fab-10
Copy link
Contributor

fab-10 commented Sep 11, 2023

Indeed the txpool is limited in how much memory it can use, so to keep local txs indefinitely the approach we can take is to save the local tx to a disk based layer instead of dropping it.

@non-fungible-nelson non-fungible-nelson changed the title Layered TxPool Never evicts local transactions Layered TxPool Never evicts local transactions and they should be given priority. Sep 25, 2023
@non-fungible-nelson
Copy link
Contributor Author

non-fungible-nelson commented Sep 25, 2023

Hi @fab-10 - slight update to this issue. We should be giving priority to local transactions in block building if they respect otherwise stated block building rules.

@fab-10
Copy link
Contributor

fab-10 commented Sep 26, 2023

yes I am already taking in account that priority senders have their transactions prioritized

@non-fungible-nelson non-fungible-nelson added the TeamChupa GH issues worked on by Chupacabara Team label Sep 26, 2023
@fab-10
Copy link
Contributor

fab-10 commented Sep 29, 2023

With this PR #5959 priority senders have their txs included with priority and dropped from the pool after all the others. I think this is already a good intermediate step, since it is possible to tune the size of the txpool to virtually never expire txs from priority senders.

What is remaining to do is the actual overflow to disk of those txs, but I think it could be less priority now

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
mainnet non mainnet (private networks) not related to mainnet features - covers privacy, permissioning, IBFT2, QBFT TeamChupa GH issues worked on by Chupacabara Team
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants