This change
- implements concurrent LES request serving even for a single peer.
- replaces the request cost estimation method with a cost table based on
benchmarks which gives much more consistent results. Until now the
allowed number of light peers was just a guess which probably contributed
a lot to the fluctuating quality of available service. Everything related
to request cost is implemented in a single object, the 'cost tracker'. It
uses a fixed cost table with a global 'correction factor'. Benchmark code
is included and can be run at any time to adapt costs to low-level
implementation changes.
- reimplements flowcontrol.ClientManager in a cleaner and more efficient
way, with added capabilities: There is now control over bandwidth, which
allows using the flow control parameters for client prioritization.
Target utilization over 100 percent is now supported to model concurrent
request processing. Total serving bandwidth is reduced during block
processing to prevent database contention.
- implements an RPC API for the LES servers allowing server operators to
assign priority bandwidth to certain clients and change prioritized
status even while the client is connected. The new API is meant for
cases where server operators charge for LES using an off-protocol mechanism.
- adds a unit test for the new client manager.
- adds an end-to-end test using the network simulator that tests bandwidth
control functions through the new API.
This PR implements les.freeClientPool. It also adds a simulated clock
in common/mclock, which enables time-sensitive tests to run quickly
and still produce accurate results, and package common/prque which is
a generalised variant of prque that enables removing elements other
than the top one from the queue.
les.freeClientPool implements a client database that limits the
connection time of each client and manages accepting/rejecting
incoming connections and even kicking out some connected clients. The
pool calculates recent usage time for each known client (a value that
increases linearly when the client is connected and decreases
exponentially when not connected). Clients with lower recent usage are
preferred, unknown nodes have the highest priority. Already connected
nodes receive a small bias in their favor in order to avoid accepting
and instantly kicking out clients.
Note: the pool can use any string for client identification. Using
signature keys for that purpose would not make sense when being known
has a negative value for the client. Currently the LES protocol
manager uses IP addresses (without port address) to identify clients.
Felföldi Zsolt