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

Run benchmarks on mock chain #229

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

abailly-iohk
Copy link
Contributor

Everything is in the title: This PR resurrects the mock-chain to be able to run larger Hydra clusters.
I plan to address the actual distribution of the Hydra cluster over several machines in a latter PR, possibly with the support of Ryan Williams, should we think this is the way to go.

@abailly-iohk abailly-iohk requested review from ch1bo and KtorZ and removed request for ch1bo February 22, 2022 20:30
Copy link
Collaborator

@KtorZ KtorZ left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍 we would want the benchmark to support running on either the mock-chain or the real chain, even though it doesn't change much for the benchmark results I think we still want to drop ZMQ in the long-run once we have a better benchmarks infrastructure.

@abailly-iohk abailly-iohk force-pushed the abailly-iohk/benchmarks-on-mock-chain branch from 8fd40d1 to 5a4f3c0 Compare February 24, 2022 17:22
@abailly-iohk
Copy link
Contributor Author

In view of recent developments, I wonder if this PR still makes sense:

  1. It adds the complexity of more parameters which would be only relevant for benchmarks purpose, which is annoying,
  2. it seems deploying an actual cardano private network might be a more interesting experience anyhow. In my mind it would have made more sense in relationship with ADR-0015 - Externalise chain server #230 but 🤷,
  3. It's not super urgent to have that 50 nodes benchmark, we can wait for the infra and cardano nodes setup Ryan williams is working on,
  4. It would be more fruitful in the long run to have the benchmarks be parameterised by run duration instead of number of transactions, which means making them more "dynamic": Generate transactions and store results online instead of in a single step at beginning and end of the benchmark,
  5. I don't want to fall prey to "Sunk Cost Fallacy" and spend even more time fixing it.

I am going to close this, we can always reopen it if @ch1bo or @KtorZ think it's still worthwhile.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants