Experiment with websocket-star in js-ipfs fallback
See original GitHub issueThis may be a low hanging fruit and a safer way to improve performance than #58 until we get relay autodiscovery enabled in the future.
@ ws-star
Client
README at js-libp2p-websocket-star states that:
We host a rendezvous server at
/dns4/ws-star.discovery.libp2p.io
that can be used for practical demos and experimentation, it should not be used for apps in production.
It is enabled by passing it in js-ipfs config like this:
{
"config": {
"Addresses": {
"Swarm": ["/dns4/ws-star.discovery.libp2p.io/tcp/443/wss/p2p-websocket-star"]
}
}
}
AFAIK peerpad hosts uses own star server(s) (see below), we probably could do the same and use them in Companion as well (https://github.com/ipfs-shipyard/ipfs-companion/issues/457).
Bonus: support multiple stars?
https://github.com/libp2p/js-libp2p-websocket-star/issues/61:
mkg20001/js-libp2p-websocket-star-multi substantially improves rendezvous server handling by allowing multiple connections and not suiciding startup if one of them is down. This dramatically improves stability and usability and should be the default.
@ ws-star
Server
IIUC this is something we get out of the box right now because @victorb mentioned that:
new version of ws-star has been deployed! Making discover of peers muuuuuch faster
Relevant change https://github.com/libp2p/js-libp2p-websocket-star-rendezvous/pull/27#issue-233670284:
For peer-star-app we would like to be informed of all other peers that are already connected to the rendezvous server when we connect to it. More details on this PR
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 5 years ago
- Comments:11 (11 by maintainers)
Top GitHub Comments
The question seems to boil down to:
I think we’re haggling over where we put the potential dissapointment. Unacceptably slow is unacceptable. If we stick with option one, we will likely put people off at the first step.
If we go with option 2, it should leave us with a share service that is usable, and we have an app that is worth talking about. It would be on us to do a good job of explaining the trade-offs that are being made and why. If we frame it around “we plan to make this service even more decentralised with every new release of js-ipfs” kind of thing, then we can set ourselves up for an exciting announcement for the day when we can remove the ws* discovery services without harming the perfomance. And we can talk about what is the minium viable set up for an IPFS based service today and update that info as new features land.
Other things in favour of option 2.
js-ipfs
currently uses preload nodes which are a centralized crutch to deal with the discovery between browser nodes problem, so we should not suggest that this is a fully distributed solution just yet.@fsdiogo makes a good point that it’s going to be awkward if the app is slower when we use a local IPFS node. I’m starting to think that calling out to a local IPFS node for services like this might be more problematic than valuable. Particulaly while users have to add additional CORS config per site to do so, which is awkward, and arguably sets a bad precedent. Do we really want users to set CORS exeptions for every site they visit?
I think we need to be pushing people to IPFS Companion and stop using js-ipfs-http-client directly in web apps. @lidel It’d be rad if we had a way to signal to Companion that a site had ws-* discovery infra in place that it could take advantage of. Difficult right now perhaps, but rad.
PSA: JS IPFS 0.34.2 uses
libp2p-websocket-star-multi
which will temporarily help with suicide on startup until a solution lands in libp2p.