params: updated bootnodes

[jpitts]

Updated the MainnetBootnodes to improve peering resiliency and reduce costs. Modified the BR enode, added new enodes for US-WEST and AU.

[mention-bot]

@jpitts, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @karalabe and @fjl to be potential reviewers.

[GitCop]

Thank you for your contribution! Your commits seem to not adhere to the repository coding standards

• Commit: 7e1307d
• Commits must be prefixed with the package(s) they modify

Please check the contribution guidelines for more details.

---

This message was auto-generated by https://gitcop.com

[karalabe]

Just a few questions before we merge this is:

On the ethstats page these bootnodes still have "TEST" in their names, perhaps we should swap those out?

Also I saw that the old bootnodes have about 1K peers, whereas te new ones have 220K. Is this intentional?

[jpitts]

Good point, just removed the "TEST" from the ethstats flag on these new bootnodes.

Originally I was uncertain how many peers these instances could handle while maintaining stable updates to ethstats. The BR, AU, and US-WEST were running with --maxpeers=256 during the test, I will now bring them up to 1024 and monitor how well they do.

[karalabe]

Ah ok. I'm not saying they have to be 1K, just noticed the number is different and thought it would be nice to ask about it. We can keep them lower-ish than the previous ones since we have more, but overall the new total should hover around the same as the old total.

[karalabe]

LGTM

[jpitts]

Will keep that in mind, thanks!

I am actually unsure about how much capacity is needed in order to have a healthy network and provide a good experience for geth users. Another question is whether certain bootnodes should have more capacity at certain times.

I have been focusing on the health of the individual bootnode instances, but now that the enodes are in params/bootnodes.go I will start thinking/asking more about the impact on the network and clients.