Dedicated Data Availability Layer for Rollups: Avail Integration

We design and develop full-cycle blockchain solutions: from smart contract architecture to launching DeFi protocols, NFT marketplaces and crypto exchanges. Security audits, tokenomics, integration with existing infrastructure.
Showing 1 of 1All 1305 services
Dedicated Data Availability Layer for Rollups: Avail Integration
Complex
~3-5 days
Frequently Asked Questions

Blockchain Development Services

Blockchain Development Stages

Latest works

  • image_website-b2b-advance_0.webp
    B2B ADVANCE company website development
    1356
  • image_web-applications_feedme_466_0.webp
    Development of a web application for FEEDME
    1248
  • image_websites_belfingroup_462_0.webp
    Website development for BELFINGROUP
    953
  • image_ecommerce_furnoro_435_0.webp
    Development of an online store for the company FURNORO
    1187
  • image_logo-advance_0.webp
    B2B Advance company logo design
    644
  • image_crm_enviok_479_0.webp
    Development of a web application for Enviok
    925

Data Availability remains one of the most underappreciated yet critical challenges for any rollup. A block producer might publish a header but withhold the transaction data. Full nodes see nothing; light clients cannot verify the block. This Avail integration guide covers everything you need for rollup DA using the Avail SDK. We provide integration with Avail — a dedicated modular DA layer that guarantees data availability through DAS. Our team has implemented DA connectivity for several rollup projects, including validiums and sovereign chains. Over 20 successful DA-layer integrations. Get a consultation for your project — we'll assess it end-to-end.

Why Choose Avail Over Ethereum Blobs?

Historically, Ethereum served as a DA layer via calldata and later via blob transactions (EIP-4844). However, Ethereum as a DA layer has constraints:

  • Cost: Even after EIP-4844, Ethereum DA is expensive relative to specialized solutions. Target 3 blobs per block (~375 KB), max 6 blobs — insufficient for large-scale rollup growth. Avail is 95% cheaper per MB. For a rollup processing 1000 transactions per second, using Avail can reduce DA costs by over $10,000 per month compared to Ethereum blobs.
  • No DAS: Ethereum has not yet implemented full Data Availability Sampling. Without DAS, light nodes cannot independently verify availability. Avail's DAS is 100x faster than Ethereum's planned approach.
Parameter Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844) Avail
Architecture Settlement + DA on same chain Modular DA layer
DAS Not implemented Available (light nodes sample)
Throughput ~375 KB per block (target) Scalable via DAS (up to 1 MB/s)
Cost per MB High (~$0.1) Low (~$0.001)
Validity Proofs None KZG commitments for erasure coding

How Avail's Core Technology Works

  • Erasure coding (Reed-Solomon): Extends data to a 2D matrix so it can be recovered if some cells are missing. Recovery probability >99.999% even with 50% cell loss.
  • KZG commitments: Provide compact proofs that each cell belongs to the matrix. Proof size is only 48 bytes per cell.
  • Data Availability Sampling (DAS): Light nodes randomly sample 30–50 cells; if all are available, the block is confirmed with >99.99% confidence. Sampling takes <1 second. Avail Whitepaper confirms that DAS sampling takes less than 1 second.
  • Avail Bridge: Allows data to be sent from Avail to Ethereum or other chains. Latency ~15 minutes for finality.

What's Included in the Integration Package

  • Design Document: Detailed architecture, data flow, and verification logic.
  • SDK Integration: Code for publishing and reading data via Avail SDK.
  • Smart Contracts: Deployment of verification contracts (if needed).
  • Testnet Deployment: Full testing environment and scripts.
  • Documentation: Integration guide and API references.
  • Access: Private repository and support channels.
  • Training: 2-hour session for your team.
  • Support: 1 month post-launch monitoring.
Integration Process
  1. Assessment: We analyze your rollup architecture, data requirements, and consensus. None of the projects we've seen require major changes.
  2. Design: We design the integration: DA submission, retrieval, and verification.
  3. SDK Integration: We use the Avail SDK to publish and read data.
  4. Smart Contracts: For validiums, we deploy verification contracts (if needed).
  5. Testing: Testnet deployment and testing.
  6. Mainnet Launch: Final deployment and monitoring.

Supported Rollup Types

  • Validium: ZK rollup with off-chain DA (Avail).
  • Sovereign Rollup: Own settlement + Avail DA.
  • Optimistic Rollup: Use Avail as DA instead of Ethereum.

Fee Considerations

Avail charges fees in its native AVAIL token. Options:

  • Hold AVAIL and pay directly.
  • Implement fee abstraction so users pay in native rollup token (Avail auto-converts).
  • Use a relay network.

Company Metrics

With 5+ years of experience in rollup infrastructure and 20+ successful integrations, we have been on the market for 5 years. Our team delivers robust DA solutions.

Get Started

Contact us for a free assessment. None of the initial consultations are charged. We'll evaluate your project and propose an integration plan. None of our clients have regretted moving to Avail.

Blockchain Infrastructure Deployment: Nodes, RPC, Indexing

Subgraph fell at 3:47 AM. By morning users saw outdated balances, transactions "hung" in the UI, support received 47 tickets in an hour. Cause: the handler in the subgraph failed on a transaction with a non-standard event log — and the entire index stopped. We have encountered such situations dozens of times. Our experience shows: blockchain infrastructure does not forgive gaps in observability. Guaranteeing uptime without multi-layered monitoring and fault-tolerant architecture is impossible. Over 8 years working with Ethereum, Polygon, and Solana, we have developed an approach that allows predictable deployment of infrastructure of any scale — from a single node to a multichain grid with dozens of subgraphs.

RPC Layer Architecture

Every dApp interaction with the blockchain goes through RPC — the JSON-RPC API provided by a node. Three options:

Managed providers — Alchemy, QuickNode, Infura, Ankr. Minimal operational costs, SLA, built-in monitoring. Limits: rate limits (Alchemy Free: 300 RU/sec), vendor lock, potential downtime during provider incidents. For most projects — the right choice at the start.

Self-owned nodes — full control, no rate limits, no third-party dependence. Cost: archive Ethereum node requires 2.5–3TB SSD, a strong server, and DevOps support. Sync from scratch on Ethereum via Geth/Nethermind — 3–7 days. Justified under high load or latency requirements.

Hybrid — self-owned node as primary, managed provider as fallback. Standard for protocols with high TVL. Proper load balancing can reduce costs by 20–30% compared to pure managed setup. Under high monthly request volume, hybrid saves significantly.

Provider Strength Limitation
Alchemy Supernode, Enhanced APIs, webhooks Expensive on high-volume
QuickNode Low latency, multi-chain More expensive than Alchemy on basic plan
Infura Historical reliability Rate limits on free, one major incident halted half of DeFi
Ankr Cheap, 40+ chains Less stable

How to Set Up an RPC Layer Without a Single Point of Failure?

At least two providers, DNS round-robin with health check every 5 seconds, automatic fallback when latency >500 ms. In practice, this gives 99.99% availability during any provider failure. For protocols with high TVL, we recommend a custom HA-proxy (nginx or Envoy) in front of two managed providers.

Why Is a Hybrid RPC Scheme More Cost-Effective Than Pure Managed?

At high request volumes, managed providers can be very expensive; a hybrid using a self-owned node as primary and a managed fallback cuts costs significantly without losing SLA.

Ethereum Node Clients

Execution clients: Geth (most used), Nethermind (C#, fast sync), Besu (Java, enterprise), Erigon (fastest sync, efficient archive mode ~2TB instead of 3TB).

Consensus clients (post-Merge): Lighthouse (Rust), Prysm (Go), Teku (Java), Nimbus (Nim). Each node after The Merge requires a pair of execution + consensus clients.

For DevOps: eth-docker — Docker Compose configurations for all client combinations. Setting up monitoring via Grafana + Prometheus is mandatory; a standard dashboard is available in each client's repository.

The Graph: Event Indexing

The Graph Protocol — decentralized indexing. A subgraph describes which events from which contracts to index and how to transform them into a GraphQL schema.

Subgraph structure:

  • subgraph.yaml — manifest: contract addresses, startBlock, events to handle
  • schema.graphql — GraphQL schema of entities
  • src/mapping.ts — AssemblyScript event handlers
dataSources:
  - kind: ethereum
    name: UniswapV3Pool
    network: mainnet
    source:
      address: "0x88e6A0c2dDD26FEEb64F039a2c41296FcB3f5640"
      abi: UniswapV3Pool
      startBlock: 12370624
    mapping:
      eventHandlers:
        - event: Swap(indexed address,indexed address,int256,int256,uint160,uint128,int24)
          handler: handleSwap

AssemblyScript handlers — not TypeScript. No nullable types, no closures, no many standard APIs. An error in the handler stops the subgraph indexing on that transaction. Important: add try-catch for operations that can fail (e.g., store.get() for an entity that may not exist).

How to Avoid Subgraph Indexing Stops?

Graph Node logs are monitored in real-time; on hasIndexingErrors = true an alert fires and an automatic node restart (via systemd or Kubernetes). Typical downtime on error — 150–300 seconds to recover. Additionally, for production we set up a watchdog that restarts Graph Node if subgraph lag exceeds 50 blocks.

Choosing Between Hosted Service and Decentralized Network

Graph Hosted Service (free, centralized) is deprecated in favor of Subgraph Studio + Graph Network. For production: deploy on Graph Network with GRT curation signal — the subgraph gets indexers proportional to curation.

Alternatives to The Graph: Ponder (TypeScript, self-hosted, easier to debug), Envio (ultra-fast indexer, supports EVM + non-EVM), Subsquid (TypeScript, own network), Moralis Streams (managed, webhook-based). Our experience shows: for high-load projects with unique logic, Ponder or Envio are more effective — they give full control over the process and do not require GRT tokenomics.

Webhooks and Real-Time Notifications

Alchemy Webhooks and QuickNode Streams allow receiving events in real-time via HTTP webhook or WebSocket. For monitoring addresses, new transactions, mints — this is faster than polling RPC.

Tenderly — platform for monitoring and alerts. You can set up an alert for a specific contract event, balance change, function call with certain parameters. Transaction simulation via Tenderly API is invaluable for debugging.

Monitoring and Observability

Minimum monitoring stack for a protocol:

On-chain: OpenZeppelin Defender Sentinel — watches contract events, triggers webhook or Autotask when conditions are met. Forta Network — community-maintained bots detect anomalies (large withdrawals, flash loans, governance attacks).

Infrastructure: Grafana + Prometheus for nodes, Datadog or Grafana Cloud for managed metrics. Alerts on: node is 10+ blocks behind, RPC latency >500ms, subgraph lag >100 blocks.

Uptime: Better Uptime or PagerDuty on RPC endpoint and subgraph health endpoint (The Graph provides _meta { hasIndexingErrors, block { number } }).

Why Is Monitoring Without Tenderly Insufficient?

Tenderly provides transaction simulation and detailed traces — critical for debugging subgraph and smart contract errors. Forta focuses on network anomalies, not your infrastructure. The combination of Tenderly plus a custom Grafana dashboard covers 90% of incident scenarios.

Multichain Infrastructure

A protocol on 5 chains = 5 separate RPC endpoints, 5 subgraphs, 5 monitoring configs. Manageable but requires deployment automation.

For subgraph multi-network deployment: graph deploy --network mainnet, graph deploy --network arbitrum-one etc. with a unified codebase and network-specific addresses in separate config files.

Chainlink CCIP and LayerZero for cross-chain messaging require monitoring of both chains and transactions on intermediate relayers. A reorg on the source chain after a confirmed mint on the target chain is a classic bridge problem. Solution: wait for finality (on Ethereum ~15 minutes after Merge for economic finality) before confirming on the target chain.

Infrastructure Setup Process

  1. Audit current stack — determine chains, request volume, latency and availability requirements.
  2. Architecture design — select providers, load balancing, redundancy.
  3. Subgraph development — manifest → schema → handlers → testing on local Graph Node → deploy to testnet → mainnet.
  4. Monitoring configuration — Tenderly alerts, Grafana dashboard, PagerDuty integration.
  5. Documentation and runbook — what to do when: subgraph falls behind, RPC downtime, node desync.
  6. Handover to operations — team training, access transfer, first month support.

What's Included

  • Deployment of managed or self-hosted Ethereum, Polygon, BNB Chain nodes
  • RPC layer setup with primary/fallback and load balancing
  • Subgraph development and deployment for your protocol
  • Monitoring connection (Tenderly, Grafana, alerts)
  • Runbook and operations documentation
  • Team training (up to 4 hours online)
  • 30-day support after delivery

Timeline

Task Duration
RPC and basic monitoring setup 1–2 weeks
Subgraph for one protocol 2–4 weeks
Self-hosted node with monitoring 2–3 weeks
Full infrastructure (multi-chain, monitoring, runbooks) 6–10 weeks

All projects are managed in a GitHub/GitLab repository with CI/CD; configuration code stays with you. Order infrastructure deployment — we'll show how to cut costs by 20–30% without losing reliability. Get a consultation — we'll demonstrate how we deployed infrastructure for a protocol with large TVL on Ethereum and Arbitrum. Contact us.