-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 797
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
[Merged by Bors] - Reduce attestation subscription spam from VC #4806
Closed
michaelsproul
wants to merge
4
commits into
sigp:unstable
from
michaelsproul:reduce-subscription-spam
Closed
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not really that important, but I didn't follow this logic. Why 5x keys? Also the division by 4?
Naively i would expect 50% of keys to do
ATTESTATION_SUBSCRIPTION_OFFSET.len() -1
and they lie in one half of the epoch.It doesn't really matter tho, we're just trying to save some allocation, the larger the better, probably
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The 5/4 is so the vec is 1/4 larger than it should be.
Other than the 5/4 the bound is quite tight because we are looking at 2 epochs total (current and next), there are
2 * local_pubkeys.len()
attestation duties, and each duty gets sent atATTESTATION_SUBSCRIPTION_OFFSETS.len()
slots. So there are2 * local_pubkeys.len() * ATTESTATION_SUBSCRIPTION_OFFSETS.len()
subscription-slots to be distributed. They're approximately distributed over 2 epochs (current and next) but with a slight offset from the epoch start, e.g. some of the subscription-slots for the current epoch were in the previous epoch, but this is balanced out by some of the subscription-slots for theN + 2
epoch being in the next epoch (we just don't know it yet). Therefore the total number of subscription-slots per slot is:(2 * local_pubkeys.len() * ATTESTATION_SUBSCRIPTION_OFFSETS.len()) / (2 * E::slots_per_epoch())
, and we can cancel the factor of 2.Experimentally the number of subscriptions per slot is very close to this. For 10k validators, we'd expect 2.5k subscriptions without the 5/4 factor, and in practice we're very close to this: