LBRYCommunity/lbcd
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 17 Pull requests 4 Projects Releases 28 Packages Wiki Activity

getblocktemplate corrupted claimtrie database #71

New issue
Open
opened 2022-07-17 20:29:13 +02:00 by roylee17 · 7 comments
roylee17 commented 2022-07-17 20:29:13 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

Failed to create new block template: in reset height: unable to restore the hash at height 1193913

unknown

Waiting for feedback if the database is recoverable using reconsiderblock blockhash

`Failed to create new block template: in reset height: unable to restore the hash at height 1193913` ![unknown](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/97372/179419559-9c816128-a95d-4121-bd4c-483ac1dced7b.jpeg) Waiting for feedback if the database is recoverable using `reconsiderblock blockhash`
BrannonKing commented 2022-07-18 21:27:18 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

What version? It would be interesting to know if this is related to the node cache or not. I thought that I had it so that it wouldn't modify the database from getblocktemplate (in current code).

What version? It would be interesting to know if this is related to the node cache or not. I thought that I had it so that it wouldn't modify the database from getblocktemplate (in current code).
roylee17 commented 2022-07-18 21:48:40 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

Database "corruption" might not be accurate. It maybe just the block marked as invalided in the database.

It happened on v0.22.102, which is a pretty recent commit (2022-07-06)

And it was recoverable by

# block 1193914
lbcctl reconsiderblock 2c3cd68739a5f2ef4c8dda71024e608f0898a67ef1210962f3454ce011671bc4

From the log below, the ClaimTrie root calculation mismatches the actual hash in the header.
Not sure the claimtrie was fully rebuilt (in the claimtrie.ResetHeight) or not in this case though.

2022-07-17 05:30:28.145 [INF] SYNC: Processed 1 block in the last 1m25.01s (26 transactions, height 1193912, 2022-07-17 05:30:13 -0400 EDT)
2022-07-17 05:32:45.918 [INF] SYNC: Processed 1 block in the last 2m17.77s (197 transactions, height 1193913, 2022-07-17 05:32:32 -0400 EDT)
2022-07-17 05:36:59.997 [ERR] RPCS: Failed to create new block template: in reset height: unable to restore the hash at height 1193913
2022-07-17 05:37:21.195 [ERR] RPCS: Failed to create new block template: in reset height: unable to restore the hash at height 1193913
2022-07-17 05:37:22.017 [ERR] RPCS: Failed to create new block template: in reset height: unable to restore the hash at height 1193913
2022-07-17 05:38:24.264 [ERR] RPCS: Failed to create new block template: in reset height: unable to restore the hash at height 1193913
2022-07-17 05:39:26.103 [ERR] RPCS: Failed to create new block template: in reset height: unable to restore the hash at height 1193913
2022-07-17 05:39:55.804 [INF] MAIN: RAM: using 6.0 GB with 18.3 available, DISK: using 127.3 GB with 89.8 available
2022-07-17 05:40:28.039 [ERR] RPCS: Failed to create new block template: in reset height: unable to restore the hash at height 1193913
2022-07-17 05:41:29.656 [ERR] RPCS: Failed to create new block template: in reset height: unable to restore the hash at height 1193913
2022-07-17 05:41:58.625 [INF] SYNC: Rejected block 2c3cd68739a5f2ef4c8dda71024e608f0898a67ef1210962f3454ce011671bc4 from 147.135.15.197:9246 (outbound): height: 1193914, computed hash: 6a274f874d2ceb112fbeec50e649919edb1b10c291c83ec29b8723036bbab5e3 != header's ClaimTrie: 5152b64862af9eefd161ddccb0f0eb663b9c65d4c5a44728371ea43bf17cac26
2022-07-17 05:43:05.475 [INF] SYNC: Rejected block 9c007d3d7cc47d0dc4aac3fdce6d5b11e46050fbaac1b72f2da0a95c98246ed3 from 147.135.15.197:9246 (outbound): previous block 2c3cd68739a5f2ef4c8dda71024e608f0898a67ef1210962f3454ce011671bc4 is known to be invalid
2022-07-17 05:43:05.531 [INF] SYNC: Rejected block 9c007d3d7cc47d0dc4aac3fdce6d5b11e46050fbaac1b72f2da0a95c98246ed3 from 51.81.34.141:9246 (outbound): previous block 2c3cd68739a5f2ef4c8dda71024e608f0898a67ef1210962f3454ce011671bc4 is known to be invalid
2022-07-17 05:43:06.090 [INF] SYNC: Rejected block 9c007d3d7cc47d0dc4aac3fdce6d5b11e46050fbaac1b72f2da0a95c98246ed3 from 47.52.140.89:9246 (outbound): previous block 2c3cd68739a5f2ef4c8dda71024e608f0898a67ef1210962f3454ce011671bc4 is known to be invalid
2022-07-17 05:43:06.624 [INF] SYNC: Rejected block 9c007d3d7cc47d0dc4aac3fdce6d5b11e46050fbaac1b72f2da0a95c98246ed3 from 47.91.158.151:9246 (outbound): previous block 2c3cd68739a5f2ef4c8dda71024e608f0898a67ef1210962f3454ce011671bc4 is known to be invalid
2022-07-17 05:43:07.441 [INF] SYNC: Rejected block 9c007d3d7cc47d0dc4aac3fdce6d5b11e46050fbaac1b72f2da0a95c98246ed3 from 47.75.9.191:9246 (outbound): previous block 2c3cd68739a5f2ef4c8dda71024e608f0898a67ef1210962f3454ce011671bc4 is known to be invalid
2022-07-17 05:45:00.050 [INF] CHAN: Adding orphan block 021a6c35dc168ce004da137c0366ad96dfb42ee66d7bc5fdc2a56ff5f8460df0 with parent 9c007d3d7cc47d0dc4aac3fdce6d5b11e46050fbaac1b72f2da0a95c98246ed3
Database "corruption" might not be accurate. It maybe just the block marked as invalided in the database. It happened on v0.22.102, which is a pretty recent commit (2022-07-06) And it was recoverable by ``` # block 1193914 lbcctl reconsiderblock 2c3cd68739a5f2ef4c8dda71024e608f0898a67ef1210962f3454ce011671bc4 ``` From the log below, the ClaimTrie root calculation mismatches the actual hash in the header. Not sure the claimtrie was fully rebuilt (in the claimtrie.ResetHeight) or not in this case though. ``` 2022-07-17 05:30:28.145 [INF] SYNC: Processed 1 block in the last 1m25.01s (26 transactions, height 1193912, 2022-07-17 05:30:13 -0400 EDT) 2022-07-17 05:32:45.918 [INF] SYNC: Processed 1 block in the last 2m17.77s (197 transactions, height 1193913, 2022-07-17 05:32:32 -0400 EDT) 2022-07-17 05:36:59.997 [ERR] RPCS: Failed to create new block template: in reset height: unable to restore the hash at height 1193913 2022-07-17 05:37:21.195 [ERR] RPCS: Failed to create new block template: in reset height: unable to restore the hash at height 1193913 2022-07-17 05:37:22.017 [ERR] RPCS: Failed to create new block template: in reset height: unable to restore the hash at height 1193913 2022-07-17 05:38:24.264 [ERR] RPCS: Failed to create new block template: in reset height: unable to restore the hash at height 1193913 2022-07-17 05:39:26.103 [ERR] RPCS: Failed to create new block template: in reset height: unable to restore the hash at height 1193913 2022-07-17 05:39:55.804 [INF] MAIN: RAM: using 6.0 GB with 18.3 available, DISK: using 127.3 GB with 89.8 available 2022-07-17 05:40:28.039 [ERR] RPCS: Failed to create new block template: in reset height: unable to restore the hash at height 1193913 2022-07-17 05:41:29.656 [ERR] RPCS: Failed to create new block template: in reset height: unable to restore the hash at height 1193913 2022-07-17 05:41:58.625 [INF] SYNC: Rejected block 2c3cd68739a5f2ef4c8dda71024e608f0898a67ef1210962f3454ce011671bc4 from 147.135.15.197:9246 (outbound): height: 1193914, computed hash: 6a274f874d2ceb112fbeec50e649919edb1b10c291c83ec29b8723036bbab5e3 != header's ClaimTrie: 5152b64862af9eefd161ddccb0f0eb663b9c65d4c5a44728371ea43bf17cac26 2022-07-17 05:43:05.475 [INF] SYNC: Rejected block 9c007d3d7cc47d0dc4aac3fdce6d5b11e46050fbaac1b72f2da0a95c98246ed3 from 147.135.15.197:9246 (outbound): previous block 2c3cd68739a5f2ef4c8dda71024e608f0898a67ef1210962f3454ce011671bc4 is known to be invalid 2022-07-17 05:43:05.531 [INF] SYNC: Rejected block 9c007d3d7cc47d0dc4aac3fdce6d5b11e46050fbaac1b72f2da0a95c98246ed3 from 51.81.34.141:9246 (outbound): previous block 2c3cd68739a5f2ef4c8dda71024e608f0898a67ef1210962f3454ce011671bc4 is known to be invalid 2022-07-17 05:43:06.090 [INF] SYNC: Rejected block 9c007d3d7cc47d0dc4aac3fdce6d5b11e46050fbaac1b72f2da0a95c98246ed3 from 47.52.140.89:9246 (outbound): previous block 2c3cd68739a5f2ef4c8dda71024e608f0898a67ef1210962f3454ce011671bc4 is known to be invalid 2022-07-17 05:43:06.624 [INF] SYNC: Rejected block 9c007d3d7cc47d0dc4aac3fdce6d5b11e46050fbaac1b72f2da0a95c98246ed3 from 47.91.158.151:9246 (outbound): previous block 2c3cd68739a5f2ef4c8dda71024e608f0898a67ef1210962f3454ce011671bc4 is known to be invalid 2022-07-17 05:43:07.441 [INF] SYNC: Rejected block 9c007d3d7cc47d0dc4aac3fdce6d5b11e46050fbaac1b72f2da0a95c98246ed3 from 47.75.9.191:9246 (outbound): previous block 2c3cd68739a5f2ef4c8dda71024e608f0898a67ef1210962f3454ce011671bc4 is known to be invalid 2022-07-17 05:45:00.050 [INF] CHAN: Adding orphan block 021a6c35dc168ce004da137c0366ad96dfb42ee66d7bc5fdc2a56ff5f8460df0 with parent 9c007d3d7cc47d0dc4aac3fdce6d5b11e46050fbaac1b72f2da0a95c98246ed3 ```
roylee17 commented 2022-07-20 21:34:29 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

Some update:

It just happened again on block 1194911 (07/20/2022).
We're restarting it with v0.22.104 to see if the RamTrie was fully or partially rebuilt when in case it happens again.
And when it happens again before we fixing it, we'll revert to v0.22.100-rc2 to exclude the node cache optimization and see if that help narrow down the scope.

Some update: It just happened again on block 1194911 (07/20/2022). We're restarting it with v0.22.104 to see if the RamTrie was fully or partially rebuilt when in case it happens again. And when it happens again before we fixing it, we'll revert to v0.22.100-rc2 to exclude the node cache optimization and see if that help narrow down the scope.
BrannonKing commented 2022-08-19 15:53:18 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

The node-cache optimization was a substantial speedup on the getblocktemplate call. It might be worth it to test the single-threaded version (with the node cache).

The node-cache optimization was a substantial speedup on the getblocktemplate call. It might be worth it to test the single-threaded version (with the node cache).
roylee17 commented 2022-08-20 02:28:53 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

We'll set up a small long-running node dedicated to getblocktemplate related stuff including this one (single-threaded version).

We'll set up a small long-running node dedicated to `getblocktemplate` related stuff including this one (single-threaded version).
roylee17 commented 2022-08-20 10:02:41 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

Can you rebase that change to the current master, and test it in your environment or the CI.

The following was my attempt to rebase, but it runs twice as longer rebuilding the RamTrie (3min vs 6min) on my machine. It could be me dropping something during the merge.

https://github.com/lbryio/lbcd/tree/single_thread_cache-rebased

Can you rebase that change to the current master, and test it in your environment or the CI. The following was my attempt to rebase, but it runs twice as longer rebuilding the RamTrie (3min vs 6min) on my machine. It could be me dropping something during the merge. https://github.com/lbryio/lbcd/tree/single_thread_cache-rebased
BrannonKing commented 2022-08-22 17:12:59 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

Your rebase looks okay; the RamTrie rebuild is slower in the single-threaded case. That's expected.

Your rebase looks okay; the RamTrie rebuild is slower in the single-threaded case. That's expected.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag specified
Branches Tags
master
sqlite
relax-witness-size-checking
peterpan0708/lbcdblocknotify-support-multi-stratum-server
moodyjon/claimtrie_temp_allocs
WIP-HF-2022
pruned_ramtrie
mem_pressure_try_2
reduce_memory_pressure
v0.22.119
v0.22.118
v0.22.117
v0.22.116
v0.22.116-rc.0
v0.22.115
v0.22.114
v0.22.113
v0.22.112
v0.22.111
v0.22.110
v0.22.110-rc.0
v0.22.109
v0.22.108
v0.22.107
v0.22.106
v0.22.105
v0.22.104
v0.22.103
v0.22.102
v0.22.101
v0.22.100
v0.22.100-rc.5
v0.22.100-rc.4
v0.22.100-rc.3
v0.22.100-rc.2
v0.22.100-rc.1
v0.22.100-rc.0
v0.22.201-beta-rc1
v0.22.200-beta
v0.22.100-beta
v0.22.100-beta-rc7
v0.22.100-beta-rc1
v0.22.0-beta
v0.20.1-beta
Labels
Clear labels   
ci

   
claimtrie

   
consider soon

Discuss this issue at the next planning meeting, then remove this label

  
Epic

   
good first issue

Good for newcomers

  
hacktoberfest

Welcome to Hacktoberfest

  
help wanted

Extra attention is needed

  
mempool

   
mining

Mining (including pool) related issues

  
peer

p2p network

  
priority: blocker

Issue is blocking release, do ASAP

  
priority: high

Work needs to be moved into sprint ASAP

  
priority: low

Work should be done but can stay in the backlog for now

  
priority: medium

Work needs to be done within 2-3 sprints

  
rpc

RPC related issues

  
runtime

   
test

   
type: bug

Existing functionality is wrong or broken

  
type: discussion

A conversation. No specific changes requested

  
type: improvement

Existing (or partially existing) functionality needs to be changed

  
type: new feature

New functionality that does not exist yet

  
type: refactor

Minimal user-visible changes, but significant internal work

  
type: task

Either work that's not related to the code, or a small chore that does not fit into other categories

  
ux

User experience

  
wallet
No labels
ci
claimtrie
consider soon
Epic
good first issue
hacktoberfest
help wanted
mempool
mining
peer
priority: blocker
priority: high
priority: low
priority: medium
rpc
runtime
test
type: bug
type: discussion
type: improvement
type: new feature
type: refactor
type: task
ux
wallet
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: LBRYCommunity/lbcd#71
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?