5 posts tagged with "Lighthouse"

In the first edition of this series we measured, under Lighthouse, where a 12-second slot goes against the 4-second attestation deadline, and found that the execution client you pick is the lever: it shifts how often a node lands late enough to fail attestations by about 1.5x across the mainstream clients, and 3.7x once Erigon's disk-bound tail is counted. This edition runs the same six execution clients on the same bare-metal fleet, and asks the same question of Nimbus. The answer is the finding: Nimbus cannot tell you which execution client is costing you, because the one timing it reports is block arrival, and arrival is the part the execution client does not touch.

That is not a gap in our data. It is what Nimbus exposes. Where Lighthouse breaks the path to attestable into arrival, consensus verification and execution verification, Nimbus publishes a single histogram of block-arrival delay. The good news is that this histogram is complete, counting every block, not the once-a-minute sample Lighthouse's gauges gave us. The catch is that it sees only the network-and-proposer part of the slot, so the 3.7x spread that mattered under Lighthouse is simply not in the data Nimbus reports.

An Ethereum slot is 12 seconds, and your attestation is due 4 seconds in. By the time your execution client sees a block to verify, most of that 4-second budget is already gone: on our fleet the block arrives, on average, 1.7 to 1.9 seconds into the slot, and that number barely moves whichever execution client you run. What the execution client changes is the slice after arrival. Under Lighthouse, that slice runs from about 100 ms (Ethrex) to 460 ms (Erigon) on a normal block. Across the mainstream clients it shifts how often the node lands late enough that attestations would fail by about 1.5x, and by 3.7x once Erigon's disk-bound tail is in the picture, on identical hardware.

This is the first of a series. We run all six execution clients paired with all six consensus clients on identical bare metal, and each consensus client reports slot timing differently. We start with Lighthouse because it instruments the block-delay breakdown more completely than any other CC on the fleet. Later editions take the same question to Prysm, Teku, Nimbus, Lodestar and Grandine.

A Prysm node and a Lodestar node on the same chain, on identical hardware, both export beacon_reorgs_total. Over the last 90 days, the Prysm hosts in our Vienna NDC2 fleet incremented that counter 6,011 times. The Lodestar hosts incremented it zero times. Both numbers are correct readings of what each implementation chose to count.

This post is a 90-day reorg census across that fleet plus the smaller GCP comparator cohort: every consensus client (CC) paired with every execution client (EC), against the same Ethereum mainnet, with per-host normalization. The questions we answer: which Prometheus counter to trust for which question, why the same EC behind two different CCs produces very different reorg numbers, and why a "zero reorgs" reading on some clients is silence rather than safety.

Key findings at a glance:

• Prysm increments beacon_reorgs_total 8× more often than Lighthouse over 7 days. The gap shrinks to 1.6× over 90 days.
• Lodestar's beacon_reorgs_total is 0 for the entire 90-day window. Its decline-reason counter fires roughly 54 times per host per week.
• The same EC behind two CCs produces 2–5× different counts: Prysm + Besu reports 69 per host vs Prysm + Nethermind 280.
• Geth is the only EC in our fleet whose Prometheus reorg counter increments at all. Nethermind and Reth export the metric but it never increments; Besu, Erigon, and Ethrex don't export one at all.
• A single fixed beacon_reorgs_total alert threshold does not port between consensus clients. Re-baseline per CC × EC pair.

We measured gossip verification, KZG batch verification, data column reconstruction, and getBlobsV2 latency across 72 nodes running all six consensus clients. The verification speed spread between fastest and slowest client: 50x.

We measured CPU, memory, disk I/O, and network across all 36 CC×EC pairings on our non-supernode fleet — here's what the Fusaka hardfork actually did to hardware consumption.