-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 80
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
Optimize gas usage for ExtendClaimTerms
#1598
Comments
Output of
|
I don't think there is anything going wrong here. Someone wanted to pay for a full block's worth of gas for this message and an SP accepted the message. If we limited the batch size of the message the participant could instead pay for a collection of several messages to all take up the block. And big batches are globally good because they are more efficient. Splitting these extensions into multiple methods would have reduced the bandwidth of operations per gas. Making FIL+ or the builtin market or the miner actor more efficient are always good things to do. And there are probably a number of ways we could do this at the cost of more complexity. But this message is not a good indication that we should focus on ExtendClaimTerms. |
The
ExtendClaimTerms
message seems to consumes a significant amount of gas, and with enough claims, it seems like it can be the sole transaction in a block and reducing chain throughput.Example of such a period:
2025-01-16T16:59-2025-01-16T18:27
. As seen in the provided screenshot, most blocks in the epochs here consisted of just of a single message, which was largeExtendClaimTerms
messages.Example of one such messages extending 600 Claims: https://filscan.io/en/message/bafy2bzaced33vg7rtqc3rlhnyvsz5xxptd4d6obvunpd3nxwikx5rcqhfi4qk
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: