Plan and implement database migration to support a new key layout #2057
Labels
P:storage-optimization
Priority: Give operators greater control over storage and storage optimization
Milestone
Comments
7 tasks
4 tasks
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Mar 15, 2024
Closes #2057 , #1041 If we keep the current design, we are also closing #1822 Supersedes #1764 This PR implements support for an additional DB key representation. The different key layout sorts the entries by height instead of lexicographically as in the current version of Comet. When starting this work, we hoped that the new layout would significantly outperform the current layout. As we do not have sufficient real world evidence for this, this PR introduces a DB key layout interface that would allow Comet to easily integrate a more preferential key representation without major breaking changes. The layout using ordercode is introduced as experimental, allowing users to easily experiment with this. This layout was thoroughly tested as part of #1044 and all results will be in a report closing the mentioned PR. Locally tested: - Empty stores get initialized with v2 - Existing stores without a version key get initialized to v1 and the key is set - When a nodes' stores are deleted and we boot it up again that node uses v2 while the rest of the nodes use v1 <!-- Please add a reference to the issue that this PR addresses and indicate which files are most critical to review. If it fully addresses a particular issue, please include "Closes #XXX" (where "XXX" is the issue number). If this PR is non-trivial/large/complex, please ensure that you have either created an issue that the team's had a chance to respond to, or had some discussion with the team prior to submitting substantial pull requests. The team can be reached via GitHub Discussions or the Cosmos Network Discord server in the #cometbft channel. GitHub Discussions is preferred over Discord as it allows us to keep track of conversations topically. https://github.com/cometbft/cometbft/discussions If the work in this PR is not aligned with the team's current priorities, please be advised that it may take some time before it is merged - especially if it has not yet been discussed with the team. See the project board for the team's current priorities: https://github.com/orgs/cometbft/projects/1 --> --- #### PR checklist - [x] Tests written/updated - [x] Changelog entry added in `.changelog` (we use [unclog](https://github.com/informalsystems/unclog) to manage our changelog) - [ ] Updated relevant documentation (`docs/` or `spec/`) and code comments - [x] Title follows the [Conventional Commits](https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/) spec --------- Co-authored-by: Anton Kaliaev <anton.kalyaev@gmail.com>
mergify bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Mar 18, 2024
Closes #2057 , #1041 If we keep the current design, we are also closing #1822 Supersedes #1764 This PR implements support for an additional DB key representation. The different key layout sorts the entries by height instead of lexicographically as in the current version of Comet. When starting this work, we hoped that the new layout would significantly outperform the current layout. As we do not have sufficient real world evidence for this, this PR introduces a DB key layout interface that would allow Comet to easily integrate a more preferential key representation without major breaking changes. The layout using ordercode is introduced as experimental, allowing users to easily experiment with this. This layout was thoroughly tested as part of #1044 and all results will be in a report closing the mentioned PR. Locally tested: - Empty stores get initialized with v2 - Existing stores without a version key get initialized to v1 and the key is set - When a nodes' stores are deleted and we boot it up again that node uses v2 while the rest of the nodes use v1 <!-- Please add a reference to the issue that this PR addresses and indicate which files are most critical to review. If it fully addresses a particular issue, please include "Closes #XXX" (where "XXX" is the issue number). If this PR is non-trivial/large/complex, please ensure that you have either created an issue that the team's had a chance to respond to, or had some discussion with the team prior to submitting substantial pull requests. The team can be reached via GitHub Discussions or the Cosmos Network Discord server in the #cometbft channel. GitHub Discussions is preferred over Discord as it allows us to keep track of conversations topically. https://github.com/cometbft/cometbft/discussions If the work in this PR is not aligned with the team's current priorities, please be advised that it may take some time before it is merged - especially if it has not yet been discussed with the team. See the project board for the team's current priorities: https://github.com/orgs/cometbft/projects/1 --> --- #### PR checklist - [x] Tests written/updated - [x] Changelog entry added in `.changelog` (we use [unclog](https://github.com/informalsystems/unclog) to manage our changelog) - [ ] Updated relevant documentation (`docs/` or `spec/`) and code comments - [x] Title follows the [Conventional Commits](https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/) spec --------- Co-authored-by: Anton Kaliaev <anton.kalyaev@gmail.com> (cherry picked from commit 55638e8)
4 tasks
melekes
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Mar 18, 2024
Closes #2057 , #1041 If we keep the current design, we are also closing #1822 Supersedes #1764 This PR implements support for an additional DB key representation. The different key layout sorts the entries by height instead of lexicographically as in the current version of Comet. When starting this work, we hoped that the new layout would significantly outperform the current layout. As we do not have sufficient real world evidence for this, this PR introduces a DB key layout interface that would allow Comet to easily integrate a more preferential key representation without major breaking changes. The layout using ordercode is introduced as experimental, allowing users to easily experiment with this. This layout was thoroughly tested as part of #1044 and all results will be in a report closing the mentioned PR. Locally tested: - Empty stores get initialized with v2 - Existing stores without a version key get initialized to v1 and the key is set - When a nodes' stores are deleted and we boot it up again that node uses v2 while the rest of the nodes use v1 --- #### PR checklist - [x] Tests written/updated - [x] Changelog entry added in `.changelog` (we use [unclog](https://github.com/informalsystems/unclog) to manage our changelog) - [ ] Updated relevant documentation (`docs/` or `spec/`) and code comments - [x] Title follows the [Conventional Commits](https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/) spec <hr>This is an automatic backport of pull request #2327 done by [Mergify](https://mergify.com). Co-authored-by: Jasmina Malicevic <jasmina.dustinac@gmail.com>
|
This was closed as the new data layout has not been adopted as the default. There is a migration script for offline migration in https://github.com/cometbft/cometbft/tree/migrate_db at the moment while we analyze whether there needs to be an online migration. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
If the representation of keys in the database is changed based on #1041 and supported by benchmarks in #1044, we need to understand how users would migrate their existing databases to a new layout.
One of the main concerns raised by users was that migration on upgrading while a node is offline is not always feasibly due to downtime.
There have been several proposals to address this : #1814 (comment) .
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: