Oh, hi Bright!
hah i like it!
lets have a fun!
Even if i just want make sure a fille will be archived as long STORJ network operates?
Example: Say i have old documents, i belive the network will live on, like bitcoin does, potentially forever, and i scan them and upload to STORJ, as my archive of choice. I want maximum possible assurance, that they will be there as long as network exists. I won’t be downloading it too often, but willing to pay more for good storage.
I’m private person, but say, i’m government, or institut. Fair use case for the settings?
hahahahha!
a 100MB file would be like 74GB to upload to all 22000 nodes!
or imagine a developer of a leading program with new version,
or better, a game premiere, with 70GB download installer.
70GB file would be 51,8 TB to upload! ha ha haaaaaa…
My 300Mbps home connection, would complete that task in …
(37,5MB/s = 2250MB/min = 131,83GB/hour.
51,8TB = 53043GB,
so 53043GB / 131,83GB = 16,76
so ~ 17 days!
hahaa, but that’s option is definitely for professionals, not me, a home user.
But say, a few KB wallet.dat, i can upload easily.
i read that article 6.1 Alexey gave link to, and i don’t like that part:
" If a file’s demand starts to grow more than current
resources can serve, the Satellite has an opportunity to temporarily pause accesses if nec-
essary, increase the redundancy of the file over more storage nodes, and then continue
allowing access"
how that would look like?
is that would be reliable?
imagine a video is an sensation, and suddenly milion of people want to acces it, and its stored in 160 or 240 pieces, what’s then?
Will there be time for any pausing access, increasing redundancy (and to how much? how to know, to how much more nodes increase it?)
Therefore i think, if You are publishing website, or got new software release,
that it is wiser to give the file more redundancy up front.
Still You don’t know how much, but at least You can give more by default!
STORJ customers are no derps. This service is designated as an enterprise class.
i guess those people know what they are doing and why, when they doing it.
Maybe You should ask them, how much they are interested in such option.
i know i would expect it to be working by default, so i don’t have to think of any manual settings, in terms of CDN. But if STORj don’t have it? There should be some easy way for customer to enable the file to scale for thousands/millions of people, either after spotting a demand, or up front. What do You think?
Because without this, You can’t just invite more customers, and more traffic to the network.
Which is crucial for STORJ grow and survival, to do so, to invite people to host videos for mass audience, but the files have to scale somehow! Or those customers will be disappointed and angry.
Yeah, and look, i just think we need to better arrange these puzzles of price and benefits, for the current needs of all: SNOs, Customers and STORJ inc. at the same time.
I laid out my reasoning for changes.
No.1 instead $7/TB egress, making a $2,5/TB, could greatly move up usage for customers,
resulting: X times increase for video sharing (which is ~80% of internet’s traffic)
and other multimedia.
Changes resulting from my proposal:
STORJ inc. CHANGE:
- +$1,5/TB egress profit (from $1 to $2,5 for every TB traffic.)
- +25% to 15% from every TB stored profit (from -$0,13 to +$1 or +$1,6 for every TB stored.)
Customers CHANGE:
- 2 times more for storage BUT 2,8 times LESS cost of traffic
- nominally no change (from $4/TB stor. and $7/TB egress to $7,9-8,5/TB stor. and $2,5/TB egress)
SNOs CHANGE:
- +1$ per TB storage (from $1,5/TB to $2,5/TB)
- BUT egress from $6/TB to $0/TB (or $X/TB if STORJ inc. want to share its pool of $2,5/TB)*
*The problem is the egress is non existing now.
i blame current rate for customers at $7/TB, where classic cloud offers as low as 1,19 euro/TB (with first 20TB free) like hetzner.com
In this situation SNOs, are condemn to slow death, with no egress “wind” and with too low payment overall. To repair this situation, SNOs could get flat rate for the node operation in total.
And maybe get some additional reward for any egress as $0,5/TB, or even $1,5/TB if, STORJ inc. is willing to keep it’s existing egress profit rate at $1/TB. The hope is, lowering customers price for traffic, would result in increased interest and traffic. That in time, would even surpass current SNOs earnings from egress, as if it was $6/TB, but with new rate.
Additionally SNOs, would at start, result in overall higher payout even with $0/TB for egress than currently with $6/TB egress.
Alexey wrote:
And isn’t it what we face RIGHT now?
(beside no one said free egress for customers.)
Egress for SNOs is theoretically $6/TB but is almost not paid practically.
Last weeks the ingress are good, because nodes are leaving (was 26k is 21,7k)
I’m turning my node’s VPNs to WG right now, so they can win more races for ingress pieces.
Because my VPN in WireGuard mode has less upload, but fantastic download speed and latency.
Will have faster ingress, and low egress. Exactly what you feared.
i hope to fill my HDDs faster, offering lower egress availability at the same time.
Alexey! the situation You are describing is happening right NOW!
Very low egress in the network traffic - says it all, they are using it as cold storage now.
I’m calling to implement ASAP, a nodes upstream bandwidth audit, in case to make possible those crucial and vital for STORJ survival changes!
Next im calling to implement ASAP the piece scalling based on Whitepaper | 6.1 Hot files and content delivery (page 63)
IN ORDER to make much needed changes, more or less, as i was able to laid out, possible.
Alexey, can You make somehow text of this post visible for readers of " Update Proposal for Storage Node Operators - Open for Comments" thread in the Announcement?