You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We should demonstrate adding and removing peers in bare metal and Docker (images, not Compose, as Compose is relatively rigid). This will explain the mechanism and will be helpful.
I don't know what the scale of the minimal network should be, and I don't mean the primary 3f+1 case, but instead, the network that allows to remove or add N nodes safely for the data inside it without losing any valuable data. I also don't know a rule where a node becomes a node we count. Do we count an empty node where Kura isn't filled with the blockchain data copied from the other nodes? Do we count a node filled with 50% of data? It's something to consider.
This is a question from Matías Salimbene that caused me to add this issue:
A question about peer management, adding/removing peers once the network is already running, translate to resubmitting the genesis block. And if I do that, and I wish to preserve the blockchain state, I should follow the Hot Reload steps. Is this correct?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
nxsaken
changed the title
FAQ: adding and removing peers once Iroha 2 is already running
Expand the section on adding and removing peers at runtime
May 27, 2024
We should demonstrate adding and removing peers in bare metal and Docker (images, not Compose, as Compose is relatively rigid). This will explain the mechanism and will be helpful.
I don't know what the scale of the minimal network should be, and I don't mean the primary
3f+1
case, but instead, the network that allows to remove or add N nodes safely for the data inside it without losing any valuable data.I also don't know a rule where a node becomes a node we count. Do we count an empty node where Kura isn't filled with the blockchain data copied from the other nodes? Do we count a node filled with 50% of data? It's something to consider.
This is a question from Matías Salimbene that caused me to add this issue:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: