element-hq / element-hq/synapse

we should be more intelligent with backoff for federation requests

Open
#8,917 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub
A-Federation A-Performance O-Uncommon S-Major T-Enhancement
Dominant language
Python
Stars
4.6k
Forks
600
Avg merge
5d 22h
Merged PRs (30d)
51

Description

This issue has been migrated from [#8917](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/issues/8917).

---

It seems inappropriate that a single failed request can cause all subsequent requests to a server to fail for the next 10 minutes.

(See also https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/issues/8915 which asks why it's a *single* failure rather than at least a few)

For example, when we are handling a federation transaction, we can end up needing to make many requests to `/v1/event`. If any one of these hundreds of requests fails, all subsequent requests also fail. The upshot is that it's hard to make progress in populating complex rooms over federation: if we did a better job of persisting the events we did receive rather than aborting halfway through the operation, we might be able to make progress in the right direction so that subsequent federation transactions have a better chance of succeeding.

Essentially I think we should consider that there are different sorts of requests that need different "backoff" behaviour:
* stuff we "push" (ie, `/v1/send` requests) vs stuff that we "pull".
* stuff we pull from a specific server, vs stuff we could get from any server in the room. This is actually a spectrum, ranging from "claim E2E keys" which cannot possibly go anywhere else, through "fetch an event" which should *probably* go back to the server originating a transaction, to "join a room" where almost any server is as good as any other.

Obviously repeated failures to `/send` should mean we back off from further `/send` attempts; it should *maybe* also mean that the target server is moved down the preference list for "join a room" requests. But it should it affect key-claim requests or `/v1/event` requests?

We have *some* provision for this sort of thing with the "long retry" schedule, and the "ignore backoff" flag, but I don't think we use it consistently, and tbh I don't really think the larger picture has been considered: it's just been thrown together as the need arises.

Contributor guide

Open the contributing guide

Assessment

This issue has not been assessed yet.

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.