Undistributed Payout
On the storage node payout dashboard, we have added a few information regarding distributed and undistributed payout for the current and any previous month.
zkSync Transaction ID
Depending on which payout method you have chosen the payout history on the storage node payout dashboard will link to the zksync block explorer or etherscan.
Multinode Overview
Last release we introduced the new multinode dashboard. Remember the installation is still manual: [Tech Preview] Storage Node Multinode Dashboard
The multinode dashboard can now give a basic overview of used space, free space, bandwidth, and the storage node version. The payout information on the multinode dashboard is currently not correct. For now please use the payout information from the old storage node dashboard instead.
Yes there was a v1.23 release. We used it to iterate quickly towards migrating the old satellites to the new multipart upload code base. That was executed on SLC and allowed us to discover and fix a few bugs. Over the next few weeks we are going to migrate all satellites.
In general this can always happen. When it comes to deployments my biggest concern is that we screw up the satellite migration or the rolling upgrade. There is room for a bunch of errors that our unit tests wouldn’t cover. We do have a rolling upgrade test in place. That test is sensitive for version numbers. In order to get accurate test results we sometimes have to push a new release. With a point release we might bypass the rolling upgrade test and that can have some very bad consequences.
Do you happen to know what the contents/format of the receipt field would be for zkSync payouts. I’m going to have to make some adjustments for this in the earnings calculator but haven’t switched to zkSync myself yet, so I would need an example.
Edit: Never mind, found it. Prefix will simply be zksync instead of eth. Simple enough. Looks like I’ll also be removing some warnings as there is a database migration included to fix missing distributed amounts for stefan-benten. Nice! That’ll clean up some historic misreporting.
I believe we have that already. Maybe not on all satellites because they get migrated one by one. It doesn’t change our currnet deployment.
So lets assume we would have the “single point of failure” satellite with a postgres db in the background. The deployment process for such a setup was:
Upgrade DB to the new version. Old API and core instances must be able to run with the new DB.
Upgrade the API instances one by one. Hopefully the customer will not notice that the API instances are getting replaced with the new version. There should always be at least 1 API endpoint online.
Last but not least upgrade core and any other process that is left.
Now the only difference in a multiregion satellite is the location. The deployment remains the same.
well actually according to previously announcements it’s 3 and pretty strict…
tho it does sort of become 4 because it’s 3 updates they count… and outside is DQ
so since when?
and why isn’t there like an easy place to get all these types of critical information…
kind of ridiculous we can’t even agree on what version we can be on before we get DQ.
that makes no sense…that version number has always been much lower than what this announcement told us was the lowest version else we would get DQ.
even when the post was made only 4 months ago… how are we suppose to know what do when the information given out in such a short timeframe is conflicting.
so we should just disregard what that post says?
and why would it even be written if it was wrong at the time it was written, was it just suppose to inform us about that version DQ was turned on… and the version thing is just how it will become at one point…
Today I Learned that the 1.13.0 in the version mouseover is the minimal allowed to join the network. Would still like to see the minimum to receive ingress (currently 1.22.2) included in the mouseover.
but a node with version 1.13.0 that joins the network gets DQ,
according to that statement, but maybe thats what you mean by joining the network…
or are you referring to that joining the network doesn’t mean on gets data
and running a node means that the node can get data…
but then again… why is the post giving out incorrect information at the time it was created…
since it can then still be more than 3 minor updates without getting DQ
if joining the network means you get DQ below this limit… maybe it should have a better name…
since not respecting that limit will destroy the node
Any time I’ve been below the “storagenode: minimum: version:” listed in https://version.storj.io/ my ingress has flatlined, and I’ve been told I need to update to be properly taking part. Not sure how you’re working or if my understanding is incorrect.
I’m with @SGC on this one I must say, I’m very confused what versions disqualify nodes or not considering that hovering the version on the dashboard shows Running the minimal allowed version: 1.13.0: That is way more than 3 minor versions behind!