Skip to content

Seed senders regularly#88

Closed
Sajjon wants to merge 2 commits into
cyon_tps_ngfrom
cyon_tps_ng_seed_senders_regularly
Closed

Seed senders regularly#88
Sajjon wants to merge 2 commits into
cyon_tps_ngfrom
cyon_tps_ng_seed_senders_regularly

Conversation

@Sajjon

@Sajjon Sajjon commented Sep 17, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Note

Target branch is not main, the target branch is the source branch of PR #86

Resolves comment https://github.com/paritytech/devops/issues/4297#issuecomment-3302247513

@Sajjon
Sajjon requested a review from sandreim September 17, 2025 12:55
@Sajjon
Sajjon force-pushed the cyon_tps_ng_seed_senders_regularly branch from cb9cff7 to ee48a69 Compare September 17, 2025 14:06

@sandreim sandreim left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was expecting that we can just run the binary periodically via some k8s scheduling and running the pod for example every 12h or smth.

But ... we can also go this route, however if we put it here, I'd rather have some robust logic when this happens. Currently it happens when the TPS drops, but that can happen for other reasons like RPC issues.

@sandreim

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Also, seeding takes some time and there will be no txs submitted during that time.

@Sajjon

Sajjon commented Sep 18, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I was expecting that we can just run the binary periodically via some k8s scheduling and running the pod for example every 12h or smth.

But ... we can also go this route, however if we put it here, I'd rather have some robust logic when this happens. Currently it happens when the TPS drops, but that can happen for other reasons like RPC issues.

Hmm, lets take a step back... we want to make transactions, but do we really need these transactions to contain fungible token transfers?

On Radix, a transaction can transfer 0 tokens (of any token, fungible or non-fungible), which still costs a transaction fee of course, but those are very small. So cannot we simply change the contents (the extrinsics?) of the transactions emitted, so that our sender "never" runs out of funds. By "never" I mean: ofc transactions costs a TX fee, but with enough initial funding we can calculate that for a riduculously high TPS (say 1 million), with a very high amount of senders (say 1 million) we can know that our service will be able to spam transactions for 100 years. That would remove the need to periodically fund senders, right? So what hinders us from doing this? :)

@sandreim

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

👍🏼 . Then we don't need this, let's just bump the funds so they "never" run out.

@Sajjon

Sajjon commented Sep 18, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Replaced by #89

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