Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Building with rocksdb newer than 6.15.5 fails #617

Closed
1000101 opened this issue May 17, 2021 · 9 comments
Closed

Building with rocksdb newer than 6.15.5 fails #617

1000101 opened this issue May 17, 2021 · 9 comments

Comments

@1000101
Copy link
Contributor

1000101 commented May 17, 2021

Hi @martinboehm !

Building blockbook with rocksdb newer than 6.15.5 seems to break the build. Is this a known issue / are there any plans on making it work with newer versions?

Thanks!

@1000101 1000101 changed the title Build with newer rocksdb newer than 6.15.5 fail Build with newer rocksdb newer than 6.15.5 fails May 17, 2021
@1000101 1000101 changed the title Build with newer rocksdb newer than 6.15.5 fails Building with rocksdb newer than 6.15.5 fails May 17, 2021
@prusnak
Copy link
Member

prusnak commented May 17, 2021

Hm, it seems that tecbot/gorocksdb officially supports only rocksdb 5.x for now :-/

@1000101
Copy link
Contributor Author

1000101 commented May 17, 2021

Hm, it seems that tecbot/gorocksdb officially supports only rocksdb 5.x for now :-/

There seems to be a PR addressing this, however, it seems a bit stale.

@martinboehm
Copy link
Contributor

Actually, the above mentioned PR never got to us.
I am planning to do a release of Blockbook (v0.3.5) with currently used RocksDB 6.13.3 very soon (this week) and then upgrade Blockbook to the newest Go and RocksDb.
From the PR, the issue with the newer version of RocskDB seems minor anyway.

@1000101
Copy link
Contributor Author

1000101 commented May 17, 2021

Actually, the above mentioned PR never got to us.
I am planning to do a release of Blockbook (v0.3.5) with currently used RocksDB 6.13.3 very soon (this week) and then upgrade Blockbook to the newest Go and RocksDb.
From the PR, the issue with the newer version of RocskDB seems minor anyway.

Great, let's track it here. Once blockbook gets upgraded to the newest go and rocksdb we can give it a go and fix NixOS/nixpkgs#122215

@prusnak
Copy link
Member

prusnak commented Jun 16, 2021

It seems there is a fork of gorocksdb called grocksdb https://github.com/linxGnu/grocksdb, which promises to better track RocksDB development. No idea how well battle-tested is this one, but the upstream seems active.

@martinboehm
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you. There is already this commit d5cff45 in the branch v0.3.6, which works with the newest RocksDB. I used a different fork and picked from it a commit which fixes only the issue with the new RocksDB but does not include any other changes from the fork to keep it simple and safe. But we can switch to the fork suggested by you if you prefer.

The branch is not yet buildable using docker build, unfortunately, because of changes in go1.16 (something related to this https://stackoverflow.com/questions/66894200/go-go-mod-file-not-found-in-current-directory-or-any-parent-directory-see-go). I did not have time yet to fix it completely.

@prusnak
Copy link
Member

prusnak commented Jun 16, 2021

But we can switch to the fork suggested by you if you prefer.

I don't have strong preference for either, because I have not investigated this in depth.

I just wanted to share what I found and I leave the final decision about which fork to use up to you, Martin. Thanks!

@prusnak
Copy link
Member

prusnak commented Jun 16, 2021

The branch is not yet buildable using docker build, unfortunately,

I've seen this earlier. Probably setting one of the following will help:

GO111MODULE=on
GO111MODULE=off
GO111MODULE=auto

@martinboehm
Copy link
Contributor

RocksDB upgraded in v0.3.6

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants