We're about to bump version again, and the code to upgrade it was
quite hairy (and buggy!). It's not worthwhile for such a
poorly-tested path: I will just add code to limit how much incoming
gossip we get to avoid flooding when we upgrade, however.
I also use a modern gossip_store version in our test_gossip_store_load
test, instead of relying on the upgrade path.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
They're really gossipd-internal, and we don't want per-peer daemons
to confuse them with normal updates.
I don't bump the gossip_store version; that's coming with another update
anyway.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Each destructor2 costs 40 bytes, and struct chan is only 120 bytes. So
this drops our memory usage quite a bit:
MCP bench results change:
-vsz_kb:580004-580016(580006+/-4.8)
+vsz_kb:533148
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We now have a test blockchain for MCP which has the correct channels,
so this is not needed.
Also fix a benchmark script bug where 'mv "$DIR"/log
"$DIR"/log.old.$$' would fail if you log didn't exist from a previous run.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Save some overhead, plus gets us ready for giving subdaemons direct
store access. This is the first time we *upgrade* the gossip_store,
rather than just discarding.
The downside is that we need to add an extra message after each
channel_announcement, containing the channel capacity.
After:
store_load_msec:28337-30288(28975+/-7.4e+02)
vsz_kb:582304-582316(582306+/-4.8)
store_rewrite_sec:11.240000-11.800000(11.55+/-0.21)
listnodes_sec:1.800000-1.880000(1.84+/-0.028)
listchannels_sec:22.690000-26.260000(23.878+/-1.3)
routing_sec:2.280000-9.570000(6.842+/-2.8)
peer_write_all_sec:48.160000-51.480000(49.608+/-1.1)
Differences:
-vsz_kb:582320
+vsz_kb:582316
-listnodes_sec:2.100000-2.170000(2.118+/-0.026)
+listnodes_sec:1.800000-1.880000(1.84+/-0.028)
-peer_write_all_sec:51.600000-52.550000(52.188+/-0.34)
+peer_write_all_sec:48.160000-51.480000(49.608+/-1.1)
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
If a route is too long, we try to bias Dijkstra towards choosing a
shorter route by adding a per-hop cost. We do a naive "shortest path"
pass, then using that cost as a ceiling on per-hop cost, we do a
binary search.
There are some subtleties: we use risk rather than total as our
counter field (we normally bias this by 1 anyway, so it's easy to make
that a variable), and we set riskfactor to a mimimal value once we're
iterating. It's good enough to get a solution, we don't need to do a
2-dimensional search on riskfactor and riskbias.
Of course, this is extremely slow if we hit it on our benchmark,
though it doesn't happen in a more realistic network:
$ gossipd/test/run-bench-find_route 100000 100:
Before:
100 (79 succeeded) routes in 100000 nodes in 25341 msec (253412314 nanoseconds per route)
After:
100 (100 succeeded) routes in 100000 nodes in 97346 msec (973461784 nanoseconds per route)
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Use a uintmap as our minheap.
Note that Dijkstra can give overlength routes, so some checks are disabled.
Comparison using gossipd/test/run-bench-find_route 100000 10:
Before:
10 (10 succeeded) routes in 100000 nodes in 120087 msec (12008708402 nanoseconds per route)
After:
10 (10 succeeded) routes in 100000 nodes in 2269 msec (226925462 nanoseconds per route)
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This is a weakness with Dijkstra, so write an explicit unit test that
we can find a short enough (but more expensive) route.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
