Improve ledger cache initialization with multiple threads #2876
Conversation
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
More complex approach splitting each table for up to 12 threads
guilhermelawless
added
the
performance
…to be used in other locations
|
Last commit moves these parallel methods to the block store, so we can use them in various CLI commands for example. Only read_transaction is accepted and they are suffixed by |
…y from multiple threads (Serg review)
clemahieu
reviewed
Sep 10, 2020
SergiySW
approved these changes
Sep 11, 2020
clemahieu
approved these changes
Sep 14, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Got a 10x speed-up on my system (Ryzen 3600, NVME SSD) on cold initialization, and a small gain on warm initialization.
Checked consistency against RPC account_count, block_count and some entries from representatives.
A system with 4 physical threads scaled well to 40 threads here, so range of values here is [10, 10*hardware_concurrency(), 40] for simplicity.