[bug#52555] [RFC PATCH v2 0/5] Decentralized substitute distribution with ERIS

[Maxime Devos]

pukkamustard schreef op di 25-01-2022 om 19:21 [+0000]:
> I have only tested this for fairly small packages (up to a few MB).
> 
> One issue with IPFS might be that we have to create a new HTTP connection to
> the IPFS daemon for every single block (32KiB).  The IPFS daemon does not seem
> to support HTTP connection re-use

According to <https://github.com/ipfs/go-ipfs/issues/3767>, the IPFS
daemon supports connection reuse according to some people and doesn't
according to other people.

> and neither does the Guile (web client).

Guix supports connection reuse, see 'call-with-cached-connection'
in (guix scripts substitute).

> I fear this might become a performance issue.

IIUC, the performance problem primarily lies in the round-tripping
between the client and the server.  If the client and the server are on
the same machine, then this round trip time is presumably small
compared to, say, localhost contacting ci.guix.gnu.org.

Still, connection reuse would be nice.

> It seems possible to use IPFS more directly by exposing the Go code as a
> C library and then using that with the Guile FFI [1]. This is however a bit
> complicated and adds a lot of dependencies. In particular, this should not 
> become
> a dependency of Guix itself. The performance of IPFS itself also needs to be
> evaluated, maybe the IPFS HTTP API will not be the bottle-neck.

Security-wise, libipfs doesn't seem great: libipfs starts the IPFS
daemon inside the process and guix/scripts/substitute.scm is run
as root.

> As mentioned in previous mail a simple HTTP transport for blocks would be a
> good fallback. This would allow users to get missing blocks (things that
> somehow got dropped from IPFS) directly from a substitute server. [...]

Seems a good idea to me -- DHTs can be unreliable.  I presume this will
be implemented with some kind of timeout: if no block is received
within N seconds, fallback to HTTP?

Also, don't forget to insert this missing block back into
IPFS/GNUnet/BitTorrent/..., otherwise less and less blocks will be
available until nothing is available anymore.

> In any case, it would be necessary for the substitute server to store encoded
> blocks of the NAR. For this I think it makes sense to use a small database. We
> have bindings to use ERIS with GDBM [2]. It might also make sense to use
> SQLite, especially if there are other use-cases for such a database.

Wouldn't this be a huge database?  IIRC, according to logs.guix.gnu.org
the size of the nars of the substitute servers are somewhere in the
200G-2T range or something like that.

To reduce the size of the database, perhaps you could let the database
be a mapping from block ids to the name of the nar + the position in
the nar, and encode the block on-demand?

The database doesn't seem necessary, the substitute server could have
some end-point

  /publish-this-nar-again-into-IPFS/name-of-the-nar

which, when contacted, inserts the nar again into IPFS.  Then when a
block was unavailable, the client contacts this end-point and retries.

Greetings,
Maxime.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part