Skip to content
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

Feature request: ipfs-cluster-service that acts as consensus arbiter #1430

Open
etam opened this issue Jul 30, 2021 · 3 comments
Open

Feature request: ipfs-cluster-service that acts as consensus arbiter #1430

etam opened this issue Jul 30, 2021 · 3 comments
Labels
effort/hours Estimated to take one or several hours exp/intermediate Prior experience is likely helpful kind/enhancement A net-new feature or improvement to an existing feature P2 Medium: Good to have, but can wait until someone steps up status/ready Ready to be worked

Comments

@etam
Copy link

etam commented Jul 30, 2021

Describe the feature you are proposing

Allow to run a ipfs-cluster-service, that

  • Is part of the cluster and runs the "consensus component"
  • Doesn't take part in pinning the data and doesn't need an ipfs node running

Why:

  • Running additional raft nodes allows for better resilience against failures
  • An arbiter could be run on small devices (like Raspberry Pi), which are too small for ipfs node.

Additional context

https://docs.gluster.org/en/latest/Administrator-Guide/Split-brain-and-ways-to-deal-with-it/#2-arbiter-volume

@etam etam added the need/triage Needs initial labeling and prioritization label Jul 30, 2021
@welcome
Copy link

welcome bot commented Jul 30, 2021

Thank you for submitting your first issue to this repository! A maintainer will be here shortly to triage and review.
In the meantime, please double-check that you have provided all the necessary information to make this process easy! Any information that can help save additional round trips is useful! We currently aim to give initial feedback within two business days. If this does not happen, feel free to leave a comment.
Please keep an eye on how this issue will be labeled, as labels give an overview of priorities, assignments and additional actions requested by the maintainers:

  • "Priority" labels will show how urgent this is for the team.
  • "Status" labels will show if this is ready to be worked on, blocked, or in progress.
  • "Need" labels will indicate if additional input or analysis is required.

Finally, remember to use https://discuss.ipfs.io if you just need general support.

@lanzafame
Copy link
Contributor

Doesn't take part in pinning the data and doesn't need an ipfs node running

Currently, the pintracker component actually uses the underlying IPFS node as storage for pinset metadata, so this isn't possible.

A possible option, and I will ask that @hsanjuan confirm this is will work, is that you could run a node that has a really small IPFS RepoSize, just make sure that it is bigger than the predicted size of the pinset. This way the node will always be last in the list of nodes suggested by the informer for pinning the files to. This requires that the informer uses the disk freespace configuration.

JFYI, you can comfortably run IPFS and IPFS Cluster on a Raspberry Pi.

@hsanjuan
Copy link
Collaborator

hsanjuan commented Aug 9, 2021

A dummy IPFSConnector component that does nothing on pin/unpin and reports 0 size available would do, I think.

@hsanjuan hsanjuan added effort/hours Estimated to take one or several hours exp/intermediate Prior experience is likely helpful kind/enhancement A net-new feature or improvement to an existing feature P2 Medium: Good to have, but can wait until someone steps up status/ready Ready to be worked and removed need/triage Needs initial labeling and prioritization labels Aug 9, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
effort/hours Estimated to take one or several hours exp/intermediate Prior experience is likely helpful kind/enhancement A net-new feature or improvement to an existing feature P2 Medium: Good to have, but can wait until someone steps up status/ready Ready to be worked
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants