Re: is an orderer node technically a peer node?

Luiz Omori


I have been wondering about the Orderer nodes also, but from a deployment and ownership perspective. The documentation seems to indicate that there should be of course at least one instance, which presumably will be hosted by one of the members of the distributed ledger consortium. The assumption there is that even if the member hosting the Orderer is "devil", the DL can't be compromised? Or is it that in practice most of the consortium members which have the capability to do so will host their own Orderer nodes? If the latter, I guess the second to last step of the protocol, when the endorsed transactions are sent to the Orderer for commit, can be sent to any Orderer?

By the way, NOOB here...


On Sunday, May 13, 2018, 9:02:45 AM EDT, Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@...> wrote:

1) a network is comprised of the peer nodes, the orderer nodes and the optional MSP (fabric-ca or other substitute) nodes. So, yes. The peer nodes obviously comprise the bulk of nodes (there will be few orderer nodes, and again the MSP nodes are optional, though if they are deployed, there would likely be fewer than the number of nodes in an org's cluster.

2) every peer hosts at least one ledger. It would host additional ledgers for each channel in which it participates. All peer nodes have "system" chaincode, which is what manages the validation and endorsement policies, and they also have lifecycle chaincode (lccc) which manages the lifecycle of installed and deployed chaincode. A node only would have application chaincode installed (and optionally instantiated) on a peer IFF that peer node is to be used as an endorsing peer for a given channel.

3) by definition, endorsing peers are a subset of peers. endorsing peers MAY be a strict subset, but that is not a given. every peer MAY be an endorsing peer.

4) yes.



On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 8:30 AM, rpjday@... <rpjday@...> wrote:

  (more nitpicky pedantry ...)

  currently perusing the entire section on "peers" under key concepts,
and want to clarify a few things that don't seem clear.

  first, in the opening sentence, a fabric network is defined as
consisting "primarily" of peer nodes, which plainly suggests that
there may/will be nodes in a fabric network that are *not* peer nodes
-- is that the implication that that first line is trying to leave
with the reader?

  next, while there may be weird corner cases, is it understood that
any meaningful/useful peer node should be hosting at least one ledger
and at least one example of chaincode that has access to that ledger?

  third, are endorsing peers in a network a strict subset of the peers
in that network? that is, do endorsing peers still host ledgers and
chaincode as do regular peers, they simply have extra authority to do

  finally, are orderer nodes a completely different animal from peer
nodes? it appears that way from that section, but i just want to make
sure, as in -- orderer nodes do not host either ledgers or chaincode.
or can they? can orderer nodes be specialized instances of peer nodes,
or must they necessarily be a distinct set of (non-peer) nodes in the


Join to automatically receive all group messages.