BlobSidecars pruning #7085
BlobSidecars pruning #7085
Conversation
| --remaining; | ||
| final boolean finished = remaining < 0; | ||
| final SlotAndBlockRootAndBlobIndex key = it.next(); | ||
| if (finished && (key.isNoBlobsKey() || key.getBlobIndex().equals(ZERO))) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So, IIUC, we want to continue pruning blobs for the current slot so we don't partially delete blobs for a given slot.
Correct?
if yes it means that pruned can go over pruneLimit and the return statement should be
return pruned >= pruneLimit
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Command( | ||
| name = "validate-blobs-sidecars", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why you completely removed this command? It was useful to me to check that we have all blobs we expect to have
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We'd better to start it from the blank, there are soo many changes in categories
|
|
||
| if (blobsSidecarStorageCountersEnabled) { | ||
| if (blobSidecarStorageCountersEnabled) { | ||
| LabelledGauge labelledGauge = |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We don't need a labelled gague anymore, we could go with metricsSystem.createGauge now.
OR we can add a label to track also the earliest slot so we can see the availability window moving.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
because now we have the total blob counter, which doesn't track directly the number of slots anymore
PR Description
BlobSidecar pruning + tests + some extra
Store.retrieveBlobsSidecars...was removed. We will addStore.retrieveBlobSidecars...when moving store flow from manager to transactionStore. I propose to add in the same PR replacements for tests:retrieveSignedBlockAndBlobsSidecar_shouldReturnEmptyIfBlockNotPresentretrieveSignedBlockAndBlobsSidecar_withInconsistentSidecarretrieveSignedBlockAndBlobsSidecar_withEmptyBlobsretrieveSignedBlockAndBlobsSidecar_withBlobsFixed Issue(s)
Documentation
doc-change-requiredlabel to this PR if updates are required.Changelog