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

docs(anvil) --transaction-block-keeper flag is not documented #1347

Open
Tracked by #8269
sabotagebeats opened this issue May 26, 2023 · 1 comment
Open
Tracked by #8269

docs(anvil) --transaction-block-keeper flag is not documented #1347

sabotagebeats opened this issue May 26, 2023 · 1 comment
Labels
good first issue Good for newcomers
Milestone

Comments

@sabotagebeats
Copy link

Component

Anvil

Describe the feature you would like

there is a memory leak in anvil. it causes my anvil node to fail in docker. I am trying to reduce memory usage.

the --transaction-block-keeper switch does not seem to be documented so I am not sure what it is doing exactly.

Additional context

foundry-rs/foundry#3478

@wakamex
Copy link

wakamex commented Jun 14, 2023

I also wish this were documented.

especially given the last post here (foundry-rs/foundry#3478) is:

I guess we could turn prune history and max transaction keeper on by default with some reasonable bounds?

I'm left to wonder whether this change occurred or not. the crashes I'm observing make me think block-keeper has been set to a default of 3500.

@zerosnacks zerosnacks added this to the v1.0.0 milestone Jul 26, 2024
@zerosnacks zerosnacks changed the title anvil --transaction-block-keeper is not documented docs(anvil) --transaction-block-keeper flag is not documented Aug 6, 2024
@zerosnacks zerosnacks added the good first issue Good for newcomers label Aug 6, 2024
@grandizzy grandizzy transferred this issue from foundry-rs/foundry Oct 31, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
good first issue Good for newcomers
Projects
Status: Todo
Status: No status
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants