Can't activate my Node!

To whomever it may concern …

Despite the numerous topics on the matter read, I still was not able to find a solution for why I cannot have my node to appear as “Online”.

Therefore, I would kindly ask for some of your assistance on this, as I’m clearly missing something out:

1 - I have my docker setup with the below tutorial command:

docker run -d --restart unless-stopped --stop-timeout 300 -p 28967:28967/tcp -p 28967/udp -p -e WALLET="wallet_address" -e EMAIL="e-mail" -e ADDRESS="public_ip:28967" -e STORAGE="900GB" --mount type=bind,source="E:\Storj Configuration\Identity\storagenode",destination=/app/identity --mount type=bind,source="E:\Storj Configuration\Identity\storagenode",destination=/app/config --name storagenode storjlabs/storagenode:latest

2 - The ports for the configuration are allowed in my router:

3 - As well as the rules (inbound and outbound) created under Windows Firewall:

New-NetFirewallRule -DisplayName "Storj v3 TCP" -Direction Inbound –Protocol TCP –LocalPort 28967 -Action allow
New-NetFirewallRule -DisplayName "Storj v3 UDP" -Direction Inbound –Protocol UDP –LocalPort 28967 -Action allow
New-NetFirewallRule -DisplayName "Storj v3 TCP" -Direction Outbound –Protocol TCP –LocalPort 28967 -Action allow
New-NetFirewallRule -DisplayName "Storj v3 UDP" -Direction Outbound –Protocol UDP –LocalPort 28967 -Action allow

Regardless, of my multiple attempts on following the steps in the guide and countless videos, at the end I get the below:

I really appreciate the time looking into this as well as any suggestion on a potential fix, as I would really like to become a contributor to this project. Feel free to let me know if any additional information is required from my end.


Hey, just a quick update.

I forgot to take a look at the first router, as I totally forgot that I will need to setup the forwarding actually on the 1st, so it can forward to the second 2nd.

I’m able to connect to the network - the threads and categories sort this one out as well as the amazing support there :slight_smile:


Hello @TrickyZerg ,
Welcome to the forum!

These ones must be deleted. You should not have any outbound rules. Otherwise you are limiting your node to connect only to customers who uses 28967 port (unlikely), thus your node would not have any (or very little) egress.

Hello Alexey!

Thank you so much for the swift response!

One more thing, before we close this thread - what are your suggestions on running multiple nodes on a single IP address, is that something which can work?

It does work*, but nodes behind a single IP are treated as a single node from the satellites’ perspective (i.e. all nodes will receive split traffic).
It’s mainly usefull to add additional disks to your setup, should the need arise in the future.

*But it does need some careful port and identity configuration so nodes work properly. Be sure to inform yourself or ask for help before going multipleSNO :wink:

1 Like

Hi sorry could you explain a bit more i just want to get the basic idea why this is.


The Windows firewall does not limit outbound connections by default (as most of firewalls) until you create at least one outbound rule.
As soon as you did - it switch to use your rules and all outbound connections become blocked by default.
You allowed to connect to only peers with port 28967.
However, there are many peers which doesn’t use this port, because it’s not mandatory. For example, satellites uses port 7777. The customers can use any other port.
As result your node may become offline for satellites (because your node would stop to respond on requests - all connections to 7777 are not allowed), and cannot have an outgoing traffic, if the customers’ software uses a different port from 28967 (more like it will not be used).

The different Windows versions behave differently, perhaps your version of the Windows firewall doesn’t block outbound connections by default and you need to provide an explicit rule to do so.
But I would like to suggest either disable outbound rules or remove them, on case if the behavior would change.

1 Like

Ah ok that is interesting. OK I made the changes and the egress traffic has increased by 10% on a few of the nodes thank you for the clarification. :slight_smile:

1 Like


Thank you, @Pac and @Alexey for this brief information - I will use this thread to ask one more thing:

If I am to run a couple more nodes (looking to share the entirety of 2-3 drives on my PC, entirely dedicated to the project) on a particular device, using the same IP address - would I need to have a stand-alone identity and port configuration for each drive, so at least I can have them separated in terms of traffic and benefit the most?

Or is the identity issued only when you host nodes on different devices?

Once more, appreciate your time to answer this!


Yes. More precisely, you do need different ports for each node, and a different identity per node.
That’s mandatory: using the same identity for several nodes would get them disqualified fast.

All this being said, there is no need to start 3 nodes now. My suggestion would be to start one node on one disk, let it pass the vetting period alone, and see how it goes (while your other disks are disconnected if you don’t need them, to save energy and costs).
Then only when this first disk is filled at 75% (for instance), you may request a second identity for starting a second node on a second disk.

Starting 3 new nodes in parralel won’t get you more data. In fact, it will actually slow down the initial vetting period quite a lot.


You need 1 identity and external port for each node instance. You could also combine your 3 drives via RAID or something similiar and use them for a single node.

As mentioned, there are no benefits traffic-wise when running multiple nodes on a single external IP.

Hey, sorry for the late reply.

@Pac that sounds good, I do appreciate the heads up on this one. And as I noticed in another thread: a different identity would require me to use another e-mail address correct, perhaps it is not an option to use my usual e-mail address with several identities?

@twl AhH, that makes it a lot clearer now! So RAID could be a good option here as I have an ORICO HDD Hub, if I for example combine 3-4 drives at once and set it up as a single node?

And my other question referring DDNS: if I can somehow rent an additional IP address from my ISP, I assume that I can run nodes on two devices that way and have no issues with the configuration and traffic?

Thank you for your time guys!


Beware if you make it a Raid 0. If one drive fails your entire node will be lost.


As stated by @jammerdan above, you may use the same e-mail address for all your identities. In the past, you could not require several identities without using them though (it would issue the same one over and over until you use it) but I really don’t know if that’s the case anymore. Something to double check just in case, I guess.

Using a RAID is not recommended by StorjLabs, as with RAID1 in theory you would be missing out as you would only use half of your storage capacity, and RAID0 would be dangerous as stated above too.

But, different members of the community can’t agree on whatever approach is the better one, so it’s really up to you: weigh pros and cons, and choose what has your preference.

First off, if the additional IP address is in the same /24 subnet as your current one, it won’t change anything as all IPs within the same /24 subnet are treated as the same one. If it’s in a different subnet, then I guess in theory you could have 2 nodes (each one a a different IP) that get full ingress each, but how to configure access through 2 separate IPs is way beyond my skills ^^

Hey guys!

@jammerdan I see, would check this out for sure. Thanks!

@Pac - I would look into the RAID options that are available and proceed as advised. As for the IP address, at least in my head it is rather sustainable and achievable to have this set up, but for now it would be more reading for me :slight_smile:

Appreciate your time!

1 Like