Changelog v1.40.4

For Storage Nodes

Audit Penalties for Repair Failures
The audit job is checking a random 1 KB stripe out of a piece. The repair job is checking the entire piece. It is possible that the repair job detects a corrupted piece while the audit job believes it is all fine. Another possible problem is that storage nodes could pass audits but deny repair downloads to maximize profit. We have decided to enable the repair job to update audit reputation. This works in both direction. A successful repair download will increase the audit reputation.

For Customers

Server Side Move
The new uplink binary has now a server side move command. You can rename a file or move it to a different folder or even bucket. Renaming a folder is not possible at the moment. We might implement that in a future release.
Note: We haven’t solved the build process for OSX. If you need server side move on OSX please contact us.


Good move I think, however just wondering if this could unduly impact older nodes more as they are more likely to experience issues related to hard drive corruption, and node stability - unless resiliency or more advanced technical solutions deployed beyond storj minimum hardware spec ?

Just throwing it out there, but could there be future scope to weight the audit failure penalty from repair failure, taking into account the age of the piece on a sliding scale.

kind like, repair failure
piece age - 0 - 6 months → -5 on audit counter
piece age - 7 - 12 months → -3 on audit counter
piece age > 13 months → -1 on audit counter

I guess the aim is to penalise nodes who are unable to keep a piece safe for a minimum of 6 months more, than a node that managed to keep a piece safe for 13+ months.


It would be possible but it would also open a loop hole. Just delete the oldest pieces and you can free up space without getting disqualified.

The audit job will tolerate a few bit flips. That shouldn’t get any node disqualified.


Hmm yes you are right, that could be exploited, although you would hope that a 13+ month SNO would be more invested in the network. I shall have a think

1 Like

No problem. Thank you for your idea.

nice to see that’s finally fixed, was kinda wondering where it was at lol.
still waiting for deleted storagenode GB on the main graph on the dashboard.

1 Like