4 ms·
Sharding intents to solve this by splitting the billion messages into a 1000 (or more) smaller problem space. Thusly only requiring 1 VM per node. (tho you need
by tscs37 9y ago
Sharding intents to solve this by splitting the billion messages into a 1000 (or more) smaller problem space. Thusly only requiring 1 VM per node. (tho you need more nodes for equivalent security)
- runeks 9y agoMaybe my imagination is too limited, but I fail to see how sharding is any different from just reducing the number of nodes in the P2P network.
- tscs37 9y agoBecause Sharding also lessens the load on each individual node. A single node does not need to process everything
- runeks 9y agoLet’s say we have 1,000 nodes in a network that does 1,000 transactions per second. If we shard the data, such that each node only needs to process 10 transactions per second — while trusting the remaining nodes on the other 990 transactions — how is this different from just reducing the number of nodes to 10, and having each node process all 1,000 transactions? In both cases the entire network only needs to process 10,000 transactions per second, and in both cases the network breaks down if 10 or more nodes collude.
- tscs37 9y agoBecause in the sharded example, only the shard suffers a break down, not the entire network, if the nodes collude. It also allows people to run smaller nodes on cheap hardware, this increasing the potential number of nodes in the network.
- runeks 9y agoWhat’s the effect of a single shard breaking down? How many shards need to break down before it causes a problem?
- tscs37 9y agoWell the breakdown of a share has differing effects depending on the consensus rules, same for the entire network. I can't answer that unless you specify which consensus we are talking about.