Haven’t been active for a while but this weekend I realized I needed my 10TB to something more important so I just deleted one of my nodes. I’m ok with loosing the depo. Almost two years and as long as my 10TB where full egress has been almost zero.
Well well, it was fun but now other storage adventures lies ahead.
I am curious: which new projects? 
That’s surprising, with 10TB stored you should have had a pretty decent income from egress.
Something like 800~900GB of egress per month (that is $16~18 per month).
Wasn’t it the case?
This said you might argue that $18 a month is not massive, but I’d be happy to make that just from egress 
Not really, it was around 40GB egress month, steady but really not worth it. Even $18 Is not worth it.
I have got back my investment in hard drives (6TB SAS drives) - My total earnings was iirc $500 in total (not including the deposit) - So I definitely had better days the first year $40 a month was not uncommon and that paid for half of my broadband bill so not that bad. Now Im not even reaching the minimum payout most of the times so my earnings are held without any interest.
I’m in Northern Europe and as this is not a very crowded space compared to other parts of Europe, but we have excellent broadband speeds and tech so the algoritms don’t work in my favor.
I have a 3.5TB node that makes 20 dollars a month so a full 10TB should easily double this amount so im not sure what the point of this topic is, seems you are trying to either start some more drama on your way out instead of just leaving it alone.
Given @direktorn’s active participation in this community in the past, I give him more credit than that. Anyone can have their reasons to leave. I went into this originally thinking I would just run Storj until I needed the space. It ended up being profitable enough to instead just expand when needed. But I can see going in another direction being reasonable too.
While I do think the egress cited seems too low, I guess it might be possible if you got unlucky with the data the node received due to unlucky timing.
I do think ATM there isn’t enough incentive to do a graceful exit. This system should really be reworked.
Anyway, sorry to see you go @direktorn. Hope we’ll see you back here some day.
full nodes are a bit of a lottery i guess.
i get atleast 3 $ pr TB stored and thats only because some of the nodes not being 9 months yet
@direktorn it’s a shame you didn’t push for getting some sort of resolution to why you was seeing such poor traffic, it seems highly unusual and we have to assume there may still be lurking errors in the shadows.
totally agree with this, the graceful exit reward is a bit of a joke.
with that kind of incentive to stay online and all the trouble it can be, i can understand that you are leaving @direktorn do keep in mind that your node performance seem to be an outlier and do consider coming back when you have the capacity to do so.
you will be missed.
Don’t see the point in announcing to everyone that your shutting your nodes down without true reasoning of telling everyone why and leaving the thought of reasons why you would shutdown. It seems like its a way to create some drama. Cause less your trying to find out why your node isnt getting the normal traffic that everyone elses node is getting. You can simple just turn off your node and without telling anyone about it.
You can just ignore my thread if you feels like its not your cup of Tea, correct? This is the internet and you don’t have to convince me.
The reason it’s not profitable enough, got that? Do you own the right to declare what I would consider probable or my thinking?
You also assume that all nodes get the same amount of traffic, that’s not true. I assume there was a reason for why the Northern EU node was created.
Bummer on the need to leave, but I totally understand; especially when trying to run on a small scale, thought I almost lost my nodes after being gone for a 14 day vacation and we had a power outage an my setup glitched and didn’t turn back on.
Out of curiosity, what are your electric rates and can are you able to guestimate what it was costing you to keep your node powered?
Some people here are not considering the fact that if you run a node for a long time you are likely to slowly gain a growing amount of blocks that belong to things like long term backups. Short term highly active data is just that short term as it gets added and removed over time.
The pricing of Storj has always made a lot of sense for things like long term off-site backups, but such files will generate little full fee egress traffic as the person going the backup is likely to also have on-site backups if they are running a 3 tier process.
The decentralized model and speed makes difference. If your WAN is fast enough - you do not necessarily need the local backup - the speed would be comparable, but you may not need to spend double the amount right away to store local backups. You will pay noticeable amount only when you restore.
If that would be a fact why don’t I see it on any of my storage nodes?
Not sure what you are talking about. Some here does not seems to understand how a distributed storage network works. Lets say there are 100PB of “backups” being retrieved. It will still be chunks of that data. One not might get 0,0000000001% of that data. So no real-life meaning.
I am fully aware of how distributed storage network works. I’m not sure that you understand that if someone places backups, archives and audit data into a system like Storj, it is not because they expect to retrieve them, but more likely so that they can have met the basic requirements of a 3-2-1 backup system (Live data, local backup and remote backup). So this data is long-lasting, but unless the owner has a major issue is never retrieved, just at some point in the future deleted.
Storj is now very competitive in this market space. AWS as an example has its Glacier storage tier which also costs $4 per TB per month, but you do not want to use it if you need to recover large parts of your data set if you have major issues as the high-speed retrieval cost is $10.00 per 1,000 requests and high speed means that the requested blocks become available in minutes rather than milliseconds. If you want to access your data cheaply you would have to wait 5-12 hours for the request to be handled.
Years ago a request could have been for a very large object, but nowadays most backup tools are creating 10,000’s of objects/files per TB backed up as they doing things like deduplication of data and so work with much smaller block sizes.
So Storj offers one of the best options for ‘cold’ storage as it has the recovery process of a ‘hot’ storage system, but the pricing of a ‘cold’ solution. The problem from a node operators point of view we hope to gain additional income from retrieval requests, so we want the blocks we store to be accessed frequently.
Decided to follow you last night and deleted my oldest node as well. 9 months without payment and none on the horizon was the final straw. I’ve left my secondary node running on a trash disk I don’t want to put back into use but the 9 month old full node is now gone. Didn’t make sense to spend money on more drives whilst that vm was sitting there essentially earning nothing.
You could have gotten 9 payouts on zksync, but of course, why mention that option…
Anyway, good bye…
and useless payments they would have been.
and it isn’t good bye. I still have another node. As I wrote above. I deleted the full node as I needed the hypervisor capacity for other things.
So I’m still here until at least that drive dies.
Useless maybe but that’s true for a lot of payments on eth at the moment.
Still a difference if you talk about payments you can’t use versus not getting paid (as that is simply not true and makes STORJ look bad)
Storj selected this ecosytem and they selected zksync. They are not accountable for those choices? That storj even failed to predict the impact of the London fork just stuns me.
How exactly does an SNO “remain profitable” (as storj likes to say) when the payments they make are effectively useless?