What is Nostr?
Jeff Garzik [ARCHIVE] /
npub1kf0ā€¦3f58
2023-06-07 15:07:09
in reply to nevent1qā€¦q3a3

Jeff Garzik [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: šŸ“… Original date posted:2013-10-04 šŸ“ Original message:On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at ...

šŸ“… Original date posted:2013-10-04
šŸ“ Original message:On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 2:22 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote:
> RE: running into the maximum-of-4-keepalive-requests : simple workaround is
> to run with -rpcthreads=11 (or however many keepalive connections you need
> to support). I agree that the rpc code should be smarter; making the last
> rpc thread ignore keepalive and always disconnecting should be a fairly
> simple patch, and "patches welcome."

It's all still working around a problem unchanged since Satoshi wrote
it: the HTTP server code paths use blocking I/O.

Amusingly, we do this through an async I/O library, which helps
facilitate SSL, but all our connections and operations are blocking.

That's why RPC was multi-threaded in part: to work around the ugly
blocking nature of the code. At least with multiple threads, one
thread will not stall another even if the network stalls (or a
software bug triggers a stall etc.)

Hopefully I can dive into the code and make is truly async I/O. It
takes some work, and I'm happy if someone else steals the task, but
that's what really needs to be done.

I tried the multi-threaded approach, writing an entire boost::asio
skeleton JSON-RPC HTTP server: https://github.com/jgarzik/rpcsrv
This is working, tested code that uses boost::asio properly. It's
also quite a bit of LOC, and a bit messy to boot (four LOC per boost
async action and incomprehensible compiler errors in return for proper
async+MT).

A single thread with async I/O is likely sufficient for even heavy
uses of RPC -- since today it all goes through a big lock anyway.

--
Jeff Garzik
Senior Software Engineer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
Author Public Key
npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58