Skip to content

docs(installation): mention blob storage CPU and disk impact#9320

Open
0xghost42 wants to merge 1 commit into
sigp:unstablefrom
0xghost42:docs/9213-installation-blob-storage
Open

docs(installation): mention blob storage CPU and disk impact#9320
0xghost42 wants to merge 1 commit into
sigp:unstablefrom
0xghost42:docs/9213-installation-blob-storage

Conversation

@0xghost42
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Description

The installation guide currently lists system requirements that pre-date blob storage and doesn't surface the additional cost of retaining blob history (or running as a supernode). New operators who follow only `installation.md` can end up under-provisioned on either CPU or disk.

This change adds a short "Blob storage considerations" subsection that:

  • Calls out the higher single-core clock useful for blob verification under load (~5 GHz).
  • Notes that retaining full blob history, running with `--supernode` / `--semi-supernode`, or setting `--prune-blobs false` can require multiple TiB of fast SSD on top of the standard beacon node database.
  • Forwards readers to `advanced_blobs.md` for the supported retention modes, the `--prune-blobs` / `--blob-prune-margin-epochs` flags, and detailed supernode sizing.

Also refreshes the trailing `Last update` line.

Closes #9213

Additional Info

Documentation-only change; no code, CLI, or behavior changes. Flag names cross-checked against `beacon_node/src/cli.rs` (`--supernode` is the canonical name; `--subscribe-all-data-column-subnets` is an alias) and `book/src/advanced_blobs.md`.

Adds a Blob storage considerations subsection that briefly mentions
the additional CPU and storage requirements for retaining blob history
or running as a supernode, and links forward to the Blobs page for
full details. Refreshes the trailing 'Last update' line.

Closes sigp#9213
@cla-assistant
Copy link
Copy Markdown

cla-assistant Bot commented May 19, 2026

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@chong-he chong-he left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Spelling check is failing. You can use terabytes instead of TiB

Comment thread book/src/installation.md

The system requirements above cover a default beacon node with a modest validator workload. Running with full blob retention — and especially as a [supernode archive](./advanced_blobs.md) — significantly increases both CPU and storage demands.

If you intend to store blob history beyond the rolling retention window, or if you plan to run with `--supernode` or `--semi-supernode`, plan for:
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the proper term is "data availability window", we can say this and then add in a bracket (18 days) for clarity

Comment thread book/src/installation.md

If you intend to store blob history beyond the rolling retention window, or if you plan to run with `--supernode` or `--semi-supernode`, plan for:

- **CPU:** a faster single-core clock (around 5 GHz) helps keep up with blob verification under load.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am not sure if it is a good idea to put 5 GHz here.

From the data here: https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks, the base speed is all < 5 GHz. While it can be overclocked, but I don't think staking operators will tend to do this.

For simplicity we can just remove the number here

@chong-he chong-he added waiting-on-author The reviewer has suggested changes and awaits thier implementation. docs Documentation labels May 20, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

docs Documentation waiting-on-author The reviewer has suggested changes and awaits thier implementation.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants