We're using batches in wrong way during persist, we already have all changes
accumulated in two maps and then we move them to batch and then this is
applied. For some DBs like BoltDB this batch is just another MemoryStore, so
we essentially just shuffle the changeset from one map to another, for others
like LevelDB batch is just a serialized set of KV pairs, it doesn't help much
on subsequent PutBatch, we just duplicate the changeset again.
So introduce PutChangeSet that allows to take two maps with sets and deletes
directly. It also allows to simplify MemCachedStore logic.
neo-bench for single node with 10 workers, LevelDB:
Reference:
RPS 30189.132 30556.448 30390.482 ≈ 30379 ± 0.61%
TPS 29427.344 29418.687 29434.273 ≈ 29427 ± 0.03%
CPU % 33.304 27.179 33.860 ≈ 31.45 ± 11.79%
Mem MB 800.677 798.389 715.042 ≈ 771 ± 6.33%
Patched:
RPS 30264.326 30386.364 30166.231 ≈ 30272 ± 0.36% ⇅
TPS 29444.673 29407.440 29452.478 ≈ 29435 ± 0.08% ⇅
CPU % 34.012 32.597 33.467 ≈ 33.36 ± 2.14% ⇅
Mem MB 549.126 523.656 517.684 ≈ 530 ± 3.15% ↓ 31.26%
BoltDB:
Reference:
RPS 31937.647 31551.684 31850.408 ≈ 31780 ± 0.64%
TPS 31292.049 30368.368 31307.724 ≈ 30989 ± 1.74%
CPU % 33.792 22.339 35.887 ≈ 30.67 ± 23.78%
Mem MB 1271.687 1254.472 1215.639 ≈ 1247 ± 2.30%
Patched:
RPS 31746.818 30859.485 31689.761 ≈ 31432 ± 1.58% ⇅
TPS 31271.499 30340.726 30342.568 ≈ 30652 ± 1.75% ⇅
CPU % 34.611 34.414 31.553 ≈ 33.53 ± 5.11% ⇅
Mem MB 1262.960 1231.389 1335.569 ≈ 1277 ± 4.18% ⇅
VM always has istack and it doesn't even change, so doing this microallocation
makes no sense. Notice that estack is a bit harder to change we do replace it
in some cases and we compare pointers to it as well.
It requires only two methods from Blockchainer: AddBlock and
BlockHeight. New interface will allow to easily reuse the block queue
for state exchange purposes.
Do not allocate a separate buffer for the transfer.
```
name old time/op new time/op delta
NEP17TransferLog_Append-8 58.8µs ± 3% 32.1µs ± 1% -45.40% (p=0.000 n=10+9)
name old alloc/op new alloc/op delta
NEP17TransferLog_Append-8 118kB ± 1% 44kB ± 3% -63.00% (p=0.000 n=9+10)
name old allocs/op new allocs/op delta
NEP17TransferLog_Append-8 901 ± 1% 513 ± 3% -43.08% (p=0.000 n=9+8)
```
Signed-off-by: Evgeniy Stratonikov <evgeniy@nspcc.ru>
Refactor code and be fine with sending to just 2/3 of proper peers. Previously
it was an edge case, but it can be a normal thing to do also as broadcasting
to everyone is obviously too expensive and excessive (hi, #608).
Baseline (four node, 10 workers):
RPS 8180.760 8137.822 7858.358 7820.011 8051.076 ≈ 8010 ± 2.04%
TPS 7819.831 7521.172 7519.023 7242.965 7426.000 ≈ 7506 ± 2.78%
CPU % 41.983 38.775 40.606 39.375 35.537 ≈ 39.3 ± 6.15%
Mem MB 2947.189 2743.658 2896.688 2813.276 2863.108 ≈ 2853 ± 2.74%
Patched:
RPS 9714.567 9676.102 9358.609 9371.408 9301.372 ≈ 9484 ± 2.05% ↑ 18.40%
TPS 8809.796 8796.854 8534.754 8661.158 8426.162 ≈ 8646 ± 1.92% ↑ 15.19%
CPU % 44.980 45.018 33.640 29.645 43.830 ≈ 39.4 ± 18.41% ↑ 0.25%
Mem MB 2989.078 2976.577 2306.185 2351.929 2910.479 ≈ 2707 ± 12.80% ↓ 5.12%
There is a nuance with this patch however. While typically it works the way
outlined above, sometimes it works like this:
RPS ≈ 6734.368
TPS ≈ 6299.332
CPU ≈ 25.552%
Mem ≈ 2706.046MB
And that's because the log looks like this:
DeltaTime, TransactionsCount, TPS
5014, 44212, 8817.710
5163, 49690, 9624.249
5166, 49523, 9586.334
5189, 49693, 9576.604
5198, 49339, 9491.920
5147, 49559, 9628.716
5192, 49680, 9568.567
5163, 49750, 9635.871
5183, 49189, 9490.450
5159, 49653, 9624.540
5167, 47945, 9279.079
5179, 2051, 396.022
5015, 4, 0.798
5004, 0, 0.000
5003, 0, 0.000
5003, 0, 0.000
5003, 0, 0.000
5003, 0, 0.000
5004, 0, 0.000
5003, 2925, 584.649
5040, 49099, 9741.865
5161, 49718, 9633.404
5170, 49228, 9521.857
5179, 49773, 9610.543
5167, 47253, 9145.152
5202, 49788, 9570.934
5177, 47704, 9214.603
5209, 46610, 8947.975
5249, 49156, 9364.831
5163, 18284, 3541.352
5072, 174, 34.306
On a network with 4 CNs and 1 RPC node there is 1/256 probability that a block
won't be broadcasted to RPC node, so it won't see it until ping timeout kicks
in. While it doesn't see a block it can't accept new incoming transactions so
the bench gets stuck basically. To me that's an acceptable trade-off because
normal networks are much larger than that and the effect of this patch is way
more important there, but still that's what we have and we need to take into
account.
send() can return errStateMismatch, errGone and errBusy. errGone means the
peer is dead and it won't ever be active again, it doesn't make sense retrying
sends to it. errStateMismatch is technically "not yet ready", but we can't
wait for it either, no one knows how much will it take to complete
handshake. So only errBusy means we can retry.
So keep track of dead peers and adjust tries counting appropriately.
It doesn't change much, we can't magically get more valid peers and if some
die while we're iterating we'd detect that by an error returned from send().
When transaction spreads through the network many nodes are likely to get it
in roughly the same time. They will rebroadcast it also in roughly the same
time. As we have a number of peers it's quite likely that we'd get an Inv with
the same transaction from multiple peers simultaneously. We will ask them for
this transaction (independently!) and again we're likely to get it in roughly
the same time. So we can easily end up with multiple threads processing the
same transaction. Only one will succeed, but we can actually easily avoid
doing it in the first place saving some CPU cycles for other things.
Notice that we can't do it _before_ receiving a transaction because nothing
guarantees that the peer will respond to our transaction request, so
communication overhead is unavoidable at the moment, but saving on processing
already gives quite interesting results.
Baseline, four nodes with 10 workers:
RPS 7176.784 7014.511 6139.663 7191.280 7080.852 ≈ 6921 ± 5.72%
TPS 6945.409 6562.756 5927.050 6681.187 6821.794 ≈ 6588 ± 5.38%
CPU % 44.400 43.842 40.418 49.211 49.370 ≈ 45.4 ± 7.53%
Mem MB 2693.414 2640.602 2472.007 2731.482 2707.879 ≈ 2649 ± 3.53%
Patched:
RPS ≈ 7791.675 7996.559 7834.504 7746.705 7891.614 ≈ 7852 ± 1.10% ↑ 13.45%
TPS ≈ 7241.497 7711.765 7520.211 7425.890 7334.443 ≈ 7447 ± 2.17% ↑ 13.04%
CPU % 29.853 39.936 39.945 36.371 39.999 ≈ 37.2 ± 10.57% ↓ 18.06%
Mem MB 2749.635 2791.609 2828.610 2910.431 2863.344 ≈ 2829 ± 1.97% ↑ 6.80%
Most of the time on healthy network we see new transactions appearing that are
not present in the mempool. Once they get into mempool we don't ask for them
again when some other peer sends an Inv with them. Then these transactions are
usually added into block, removed from mempool and no one actually sends them
again to us. Some stale nodes can do that, but it's not very likely to
happen.
At the receiving end at the same time it's quite expensive to do full chain
HasTransaction() query, so if we can avoid doing that it's always good. Here
it technically allows resending old transaction that will be re-requested and
an attempt to add it to mempool will be made. But it'll inevitably fail
because the same HasTransaction() check is done there too. One can try to
maliciously flood the node with stale transactions but it doesn't differ from
flooding it with any other invalid transactions, so there is no new attack
vector added.
Baseline, 4 nodes with 10 workers:
RPS 6902.296 6465.662 6856.044 6785.515 6157.024 ≈ 6633 ± 4.26%
TPS 6468.431 6218.867 6610.565 6288.596 5790.556 ≈ 6275 ± 4.44%
CPU % 50.231 42.925 49.481 48.396 42.662 ≈ 46.7 ± 7.01%
Mem MB 2856.841 2684.103 2756.195 2733.485 2422.787 ≈ 2691 ± 5.40%
Patched:
RPS 7176.784 7014.511 6139.663 7191.280 7080.852 ≈ 6921 ± 5.72% ↑ 4.34%
TPS 6945.409 6562.756 5927.050 6681.187 6821.794 ≈ 6588 ± 5.38% ↑ 4.99%
CPU % 44.400 43.842 40.418 49.211 49.370 ≈ 45.4 ± 7.53% ↓ 2.78%
Mem MB 2693.414 2640.602 2472.007 2731.482 2707.879 ≈ 2649 ± 3.53% ↓ 1.56%
Network communication takes time. Handling some messages (like transaction)
also takes time. We can share this time by making handler a separate
goroutine. So while message is being handled receiver can already get and
parse the next one.
It doesn't improve metrics a lot, but still I think it makes sense and in some
scenarios this can be more beneficial than this.
e41fc2fd1b, 4 nodes, 10 workers
RPS 6732.979 6396.160 6759.624 6246.398 6589.841 ≈ 6545 ± 3.02%
TPS 6491.062 5984.190 6275.652 5867.477 6360.797 ≈ 6196 ± 3.77%
CPU % 42.053 43.515 44.768 40.344 44.112 ≈ 43.0 ± 3.69%
Mem MB 2564.130 2744.236 2636.267 2589.505 2765.926 ≈ 2660 ± 3.06%
Patched:
RPS 6902.296 6465.662 6856.044 6785.515 6157.024 ≈ 6633 ± 4.26% ↑ 1.34%
TPS 6468.431 6218.867 6610.565 6288.596 5790.556 ≈ 6275 ± 4.44% ↑ 1.28%
CPU % 50.231 42.925 49.481 48.396 42.662 ≈ 46.7 ± 7.01% ↑ 8.60%
Mem MB 2856.841 2684.103 2756.195 2733.485 2422.787 ≈ 2691 ± 5.40% ↑ 1.17%
We use them quite frequently (consider children for a new branch
node) and it is better to get rid of unneeded allocations.
Signed-off-by: Evgeniy Stratonikov <evgeniy@nspcc.ru>
