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

Added initial implementations for packet forwarder in vortexor #5027

Open
wants to merge 10 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

lijunwangs
Copy link

@lijunwangs lijunwangs commented Feb 18, 2025

Problem

Added capability in TPU vortexor to forward verified packets to configured validator.

Summary of Changes

Support logging into files in vortexor.
Support specifying pairing validator's addresses
Receive from sigverify and send packets to pairing validators.

This PR will be followed by the receiver side in the validator and stake map updater.

For now run the vortexor like this:

./target/release/solana-vortexor -i /home/solana/.config/solana/id.json -n 10.138.0.136:8100

USAGE:
solana-vortexor --destination HOST:PORT... --identity

Fixes #

@ceciEstErmat
Copy link

Oh that looks interesting !
Could you share a bit about the intent behind such new module ? I'm not mistaken in this "vortexor" being pretty much the equivalent of the Jito relayer ?

@lijunwangs
Copy link
Author

Oh that looks interesting ! Could you share a bit about the intent behind such new module ? I'm not mistaken in this "vortexor" being pretty much the equivalent of the Jito relayer ?

Functionally it is equivalent. We target to get this natively supported in Agave and with some performance improvements.

@ceciEstErmat
Copy link

Oh that looks interesting ! Could you share a bit about the intent behind such new module ? I'm not mistaken in this "vortexor" being pretty much the equivalent of the Jito relayer ?

Functionally it is equivalent. We target to get this natively supported in Agave and with some performance improvements.

Makes sense thanks !

Its interesting to see the facturation of the validator stage being made standalone module like this.
I wonder if this is gonna be applied for other stages as well, as to maybe move towards a some sort of a "tile" architecture like we see on FD .

Just rambling x)

@lijunwangs lijunwangs force-pushed the tpu_vortexor.sigverify.sender3 branch from 83f9ed4 to b0bfc56 Compare February 24, 2025 19:52
Copy link

@brooksprumo brooksprumo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see I was added as a reviewer, but I'm not familiar with this part of the code. Is there something specific you'd like me review?

@lijunwangs lijunwangs force-pushed the tpu_vortexor.sigverify.sender3 branch from 100b3ba to dabf02e Compare February 26, 2025 23:59
@lijunwangs
Copy link
Author

I see I was added as a reviewer, but I'm not familiar with this part of the code. Is there something specific you'd like me review?

No worry, I saw your name in the suggested reviewers for the changes and blindly clicked it.

@lijunwangs lijunwangs force-pushed the tpu_vortexor.sigverify.sender3 branch from 4a04f34 to 3201fed Compare February 27, 2025 18:01
Copy link

@alexpyattaev alexpyattaev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

just a couple of nitpicks, looking good!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why not add this to solana-logger crate?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

the logger seems to be removed from the mono-repo. also the solana-logger seems to be the setting for the logger itself. This is only used for executables redirecting stderr to log files and a little less generic than the logger functions.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes it is in sdk. Just feels wrong to create another crate just for 2 functions.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

maybe @bw-solana can advise on how to proceed.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

actually only one pub functions. But this is not first time we do it. e.g. genesis-utils also has only one pub function in it.

@lijunwangs lijunwangs requested a review from bw-solana February 28, 2025 19:56
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants