cc4ea7a685
This change includes a lot of things, listed below.
The interfaces have been split up into one write-interface and one read-interface, with `Snapshot` being the gateway from write to read. This simplifies the semantics _a lot_.
Example of splitting up an interface into one readonly 'snapshot' part, and one updatable writeonly part:
```golang
type MeterSnapshot interface {
Count() int64
Rate1() float64
Rate5() float64
Rate15() float64
RateMean() float64
}
// Meters count events to produce exponentially-weighted moving average rates
// at one-, five-, and fifteen-minutes and a mean rate.
type Meter interface {
Mark(int64)
Snapshot() MeterSnapshot
Stop()
}
```
This PR makes the concurrency model clearer. We have actual meters and snapshot of meters. The `meter` is the thing which can be accessed from the registry, and updates can be made to it.
- For all `meters`, (`Gauge`, `Timer` etc), it is assumed that they are accessed by different threads, making updates. Therefore, all `meters` update-methods (`Inc`, `Add`, `Update`, `Clear` etc) need to be concurrency-safe.
- All `meters` have a `Snapshot()` method. This method is _usually_ called from one thread, a backend-exporter. But it's fully possible to have several exporters simultaneously: therefore this method should also be concurrency-safe.
TLDR: `meter`s are accessible via registry, all their methods must be concurrency-safe.
For all `Snapshot`s, it is assumed that an individual exporter-thread has obtained a `meter` from the registry, and called the `Snapshot` method to obtain a readonly snapshot. This snapshot is _not_ guaranteed to be concurrency-safe. There's no need for a snapshot to be concurrency-safe, since exporters should not share snapshots.
Note, though: that by happenstance a lot of the snapshots _are_ concurrency-safe, being unmutable minimal representations of a value. Only the more complex ones are _not_ threadsafe, those that lazily calculate things like `Variance()`, `Mean()`.
Example of how a background exporter typically works, obtaining the snapshot and sequentially accessing the non-threadsafe methods in it:
```golang
ms := metric.Snapshot()
...
fields := map[string]interface{}{
"count": ms.Count(),
"max": ms.Max(),
"mean": ms.Mean(),
"min": ms.Min(),
"stddev": ms.StdDev(),
"variance": ms.Variance(),
```
TLDR: `snapshots` are not guaranteed to be concurrency-safe (but often are).
I also changed the `Sample` type: previously, it iterated the samples fully every time `Mean()`,`Sum()`, `Min()` or `Max()` was invoked. Since we now have readonly base data, we can just iterate it once, in the constructor, and set all four values at once.
The same thing has been done for runtimehistogram.
Back when ResettingTImer was implemented, as part of https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/pull/15910, Anton implemented a `Percentiles` on the new type. However, the method did not conform to the other existing types which also had a `Percentiles`.
1. The existing ones, on input, took `0.5` to mean `50%`. Anton used `50` to mean `50%`.
2. The existing ones returned `float64` outputs, thus interpolating between values. A value-set of `0, 10`, at `50%` would return `5`, whereas Anton's would return either `0` or `10`.
This PR removes the 'new' version, and uses only the 'legacy' percentiles, also for the ResettingTimer type.
The resetting timer snapshot was also defined so that it would expose the internal values. This has been removed, and getters for `Max, Min, Mean` have been added instead.
A lot of types were exported, but do not need to be. This PR unexports quite a lot of them.
metrics: refactor metrics (28035)
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .github | ||
| accounts | ||
| assets/images | ||
| bmt | ||
| build | ||
| cicd | ||
| cmd | ||
| common | ||
| compression/rle | ||
| consensus | ||
| console | ||
| containers/docker | ||
| contracts | ||
| core | ||
| crypto | ||
| docker | ||
| eth | ||
| ethclient | ||
| ethdb | ||
| ethstats | ||
| event | ||
| genesis | ||
| internal | ||
| les | ||
| light | ||
| log | ||
| metrics | ||
| miner | ||
| node | ||
| p2p | ||
| params | ||
| rlp | ||
| rpc | ||
| swarm | ||
| tests | ||
| trie | ||
| XDCx | ||
| XDCxDAO | ||
| XDCxlending | ||
| .dockerignore | ||
| .gitattributes | ||
| .gitignore | ||
| .travis.yml.bak | ||
| COPYING | ||
| COPYING.LESSER | ||
| Dockerfile | ||
| Dockerfile.bootnode | ||
| Dockerfile.node | ||
| go.mod | ||
| go.sum | ||
| interfaces.go | ||
| Makefile | ||
| README.md | ||
XDPoSChain
XinFin XDPoSchain
Enterprise ready hybrid blockchain for global trade and finance
XinFin Hybrid Blockchain
XinFin Hybrid Blockchain is an Enterprise ready Blockchain for global trade and finance
Visit: XinFin.org Contribute: Developer Docs
XinFin Network XDPoS is community driven project to achieve the following
-
XinFin DPOS (XDPoS) consensus that selects 108 set of Masternodes to achieve a high throughput Energy efficient consensus with instant block finality
-
KYC Enforcement on Masternodes for Enterprise Adoption and compliance
-
Ability to port/relay limited set of data and transactions from privacy channels to public channel
-
Interoperability between applications hosted on Private Blockchains like Corda, Hyperledger, Quorum(JP Morgan) using relayers to XinFin Network
-
Customer Centric and consortium driven Governance to equally benefit the validators as well as providing comfort for large scale enterprise applications to be hosted on the Network. This achieves
-
Rapid Upgradability
-
DApps Standardisation for rapid commercialisation
-
Compliance with major global jurisdictions.
-
KYC for masternodes
OVERVIEW
To add a layer of KYC for masternodes in the current system and a sense of ownership amongst the masternodes hence tying such a cluster of masternodes to physical entity which can held accountable for its actions.
Design
We established a bidirectional connection between a candidate and its owner inorder to retrieve a candidate belonging to a specific owner & vice versa.
All the masternodes are recognized by the KYC of their owners and hence are considered as a single verified entity ( for eg. while voting for invalid KYC, only one vote is considered per such cluster )
The contract is very strict in handing out penalty for invalid KYC, it results loss of all funds invested in all of its candidates.
For eg. say A proposes condidates B,C,D by paying for its proposal cost. If at a later stage if some predecided amount of owners ( investors ) vote that a KYC for a A is invalid then A & all of its candidates (B,C,D) will lose their position & all their funds will be lost ( will remain with contract wallet ).
For developers
Continues integration & delivery
See https://github.com/XinFinOrg/XDPoSChain/tree/dev-upgrade/cicd
To contribute
Simple create a pull request along with proper reasoning, we'll get back to you.
Our Channels : Telegram Developer Group or XDC.Dev