* fix(config): explicit Provider.Enabled flag
Adds missing config option described in
https://github.com/ipfs/kubo/issues/10803
* refactor: remove Experimental.StrategicProviding
removing experiment, replaced with Provider.Enabled
* test(cli): routing [re]provide
updated and added tests for manually triggering provide and reprovide
and making them respect global configuration flag to avoid
inconsistent behaviors
* docs: improve DelegatedRouters
* refactor: default DefaultProviderWorkerCount=16
- simplified default for both
- 16 is safer for non-accelerated DHT client
- acceletated DHT performs better without limit anyway - updated docs
Updates: #9396Closes: #6831Closes: #6208
Currently the Graphsync server is not widely used due to lack of compatible software.
There have been many years yet we are unable to find any production software making use of the graphsync server in Kubo.
There exists some in the filecoin ecosystem but we are not aware of uses with Kubo.
Even in filecoin graphsync is not the only datatransfer solution available like it could have been in the past.
`go-graphsync` is also developped on many concurrent branches.
The specification for graphsync are less clear than the trustless gateway one and lack a complete conformance test suite any implementation can run.
It is not easily extansible either because selectors are too limited for interesting queries without sideloading ADLs, which for now are hardcoded solutions.
Finaly Kubo is consistently one of the fastest software to update to a new go-libp2p release.
This means the burden to track go-libp2p changes in go-graphsync falls on us, else Kubo cannot compile even if almost all users do not use this feature.
We are then removing the graphsync server experiment.
For people who want alternatives we would like you to try the Trustless-Gateway-over-Libp2p experiment instead, the protocol is simpler (request-response-based) and let us reuse both clients and servers with minimal injection in the network layer.
If you think this is a mistake and we should put it back you should try to answer theses points:
- Find a piece of opensource code which uses a graphsync client to download data from Kubo.
- Why is Trustless-Gateway-over-Libp2p not suitable instead ?
- Why is bitswap not suitable instead ?
Implementation details such as go-graphsync performance vs boxo/gateway is not very interesting to us in this discussion unless they are really huge (in the range of 10x~100x+ more) because the gateway code is under high development and we would be interested in fixing theses.
This adds the ability to enable "optimistic provide" to the default
DHT client, which enables faster provides and reprovides.
For more information about optimistic provide, see:
https://protocollabs.notion.site/Optimistic-Provide-2c79745820fa45649d48de038516b814
Note that this feature only works when using non-custom router
types. This does not include the ability to enable optimistic provide
on custom routers for now, to minimize the footprint of this
experimental feature. We intend on continuing to test this and improve
the UX, which may or may not involve adding configuration for it to
custom routers. We also plan on refactoring/redesigning custom routers
more broadly so I don't want this to add more effort for maintainers
and confusion for users.
We should have a more permanent way to configure security transports, but
experimental flags are a quick and unstable way to do this without making any
promises.
