Proposal #127
SubQuery Managed Service Solution (Q2, 2023)
Democracy
2 Comments
Tabled

Proponent/Paid to: a3bDuQajgZhVs7Z9bJxfxBNyqBqmQCZr37okVrU7NCfzABJo8

Date: 3rd July 2023

Requested KINT: 2,015.0921

Short description: Ongoing costs for Quarter 2 (April, May and June) of 2023, for the running of a high performance and reliable data indexing managed service for Interlay.

Full proposal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14RhSII6ErkxozBDQWHFXycmsQPjeTTuWSmNMiI2r9Fc/edit?usp=sharing

Original Motivation

Almost every blockchain has a need to process and query data, however everyone knows that a core weakness of blockchain data is that the processing and query performance is extremely inefficient. SubQuery is an open source platform that solves that.

Additionally, managing infrastructure can also be extremely challenging and many teams don't have the expertise or resource that is needed to deploy indexers to cloud providers and then run them at high availability so that they can be relied on for production use cases. SubQuery provides a hosted service with 99.9% reliability to remove this burden from teams,  so they can stay focused on building their dApps. 

Service Details 

Interlay is currently leveraging SubQuery's enterprise-level managed service to provide reliable hosting for their SubQuery projects. This critical service provides production data to applications built by the Interlay team and the 99.9% uptime reliability ensures a seamless experience for the core team and their ecosystem.

Over the period of 2023-04-01 to 2023-06-30, SubQuery supported Interlay's SubQuery projects running in a shared database for a total of 4,368 compute hours. Each project deployment requires an indexing service, a compute service, and database access run in a production environment and monitored constantly to ensure availability.

Costings

This proposal includes combined running costs for our infrastructure for Interlay from 1st April  2023 until 30th June 2023. The total combined running cost is USD $936.24.

Read the Full Proposal here: 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14RhSII6ErkxozBDQWHFXycmsQPjeTTuWSmNMiI2r9Fc/edit?usp=sharing

Edited
Reply
Up
Share
Second
No current seconds
This proposal has been turned into referendum.
  • Call
  • Metadata
  • Timeline2
Comments

I would like to understand the rationale for continuing with SubQuery when SubSquid is also used. I am more familiar with SubSquid (so I am biased).
Why would we want to run both in parallel?
For SubSquid, the repo is public and people can see how it works, is the same true for SubQuery?

Reply
Up