-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
Update phase1 settings #4190
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update phase1 settings #4190
Changes from 1 commit
4707f4c
68ef929
56d9036
c886305
8444386
05d7f32
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -295,8 +295,8 @@ | |
{ | ||
"state_archival": { | ||
"max_entry_ttl": 3110400, | ||
"min_temporary_ttl": 16, | ||
"min_persistent_ttl": 120960, | ||
"min_temporary_ttl": 17000, | ||
"min_persistent_ttl": 2073600, | ||
"persistent_rent_rate_denominator": 535680, | ||
"temp_rent_rate_denominator": 5356800, | ||
"max_entries_to_archive": 100, | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. With this new minimum TTL settings, we can update There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. If we reduce one of the ttl values below 16384, we should reduce the scan size as well right? Do you foresee any issues with this? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Correct, but this should be fine. We have a test that reduces the scan level and we've done this before on future net without issue. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Done |
||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we want to do
17280
instead so we have exactly 24 hours?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This number may have been chosen as a result of some calculation, so I'll defer to @dmkozh.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
17280 sounds fine to me - I just used a few rough numbers to compare the options.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Updated to 17280