This would be OK for me, as long as there is no need for quick reaction times if there is a problem. Operating a node does not pay nearly enough to hire employees to watch it 24/7
While I acknowledge the motive, means and opportunity for performing the strike, I will not participate for reasons I stated in my other posts.
I am worried, however, that elevated repair traffic might make my nodes participate unwillingly without my input into the matter. I am talking here about a potential for a cascading system failure.
I would therefore request that the first such event was short enough not to trigger the repair activity.
Well, let’s consider possibilities.
What you say is only applicable if your data does not grow. You have your 8TB fixed collection, and you expect to have 8TB fixed collection 5 years from now. Then you buy 8TB array worth of disks and have no free space to run node. Great. you are in no position to host a node. Why are you here?
That is not most people though. For most people data grows year over year, at accelerated rate. For example, they take a bunch of pictures that need to be backed up, they host work data, raw footage, backups from family; Anecdotally I add over 1TB this year. And it keeps increasing year over year.
Hence, if I buy disks today, I shall size them large enough to accommodate my needs for the next 5 years. For two reason:
- A year from now I don’t want to need to redo the whole array, sell old disks, buy new disks
- Disk bays cary opportunity cost: I have a finite number of them, so if I stick a small disk there I have used up the space a bigger disk could fit.
This means you always have on average half of 5-year worth of anticipated growth empty, and then some, because you unlikely to find disks that exactly match your prediction. That’s what you share with storj.
- Well, storj is not suppose to buy you disks. You buy disks for yourself. Storj comes later.
- This is not a realistic scenario. I can’t sell the disk – it’s part of the array.
You also seem to be talking about one isolated disk. Nobody has isolated disks spinning. they are useless. Modern disks are meant to be used in arrays: the reliability was traded for low cost, so you pretty much have to use redundant arrays. Plus you get much better performance from an array with modern filesystems than you can ever get from a single disk. So this spherical disk in the vacuum does not exist
As described above, a reasonable person will anticipate growth and size the storage array to last 5 years or more, and run storage node on empty space in the meantime.
No, I’ll give it a read, thank you.
Three is no incentive. Storage node cannot/should not sustainably pay enough to buy you a disk. Otherwise storj would just build their own datacenter. They won’t need you. Past gigantic payouts were needed to bootstrap the business and break chicken/egg loop. They were never sustainable and you know that.
Storage node offsets your costs you have regardless of whether you run it or not. Offsets. Not reimburses nor is intended to make you profit.
I hope my explanation above makes sense.
You can’t shrink a node, so whatever space I allocate to it can be considered lost. It’s not like I can shrink the node by 100GB to free up some space for my files. So far the options are:
- use the space that I plan to never use for my stuff
- Kill a big node to reclaim all used space, then recreate a smaller one and sit without income for a year.
- Run many small nodes that could be removed easily, increasing the administration/monitoring effort and possibly system load for the same exact payout.
You have my 150 Tb axe
In my opinion, the community and the node operators have to finally pressure STORJ to answer what their “other” spending is! Otherwise, this could rub SNO in the wrong way and they feel cheated looking at your Quarterly Reports.
I think the new payout is fair, if it stays at that point, which they state as a goal.
I was not too far off with my prediction (1,75$ storage, 2,5$ egress) of what a realistic price could be.
As predicted, people who didn’t understand how using only unused resources is the one and only real USP of STORJ will get washed out by economics.
okay, that’s indeed, super arrogant.
Do You really know, what i know?
I have spent many days, thinking about it, and my conclusion, which i wrote here on forum, is that it is possible to price customers in such a way that they pay SNO enough to be able to afford to periodically buy additional drives when their old ones fill up. Used ones only, of course!
I totally agree with your posts on the topic of used disks, I think you wrote about it brilliantly! Applause for you. On the other hand, it seems that YOU are not interested in writings i made on how to make it possible for the whole world to adopt STORJ. I am in favor of common access, with keeping quality high, and price low, by constantly upgrading the process (I love Henry Ford works and teachings) and a good rewards for efforts to make everyone in the company happy (partners included, like SNOs, i consider the same team as STORJ inc.) (It’s the philosophy of Richard Branson, the one who founded and ran at one point probably up to 400 companies, founder of the brand “Virgin” )
Because otherwise, when a company presses it’s people for savings, to theirs limits, like STORJ inc. did, to see how much it can afford, at some point something will break and the same reaction will follow, only in the opposite direction, as we have evidence of here, a strike. “He who sows the storm, reaps the wind.” or “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Cracked in some people, and strikes are being formed. Certainly not in accordance with R.Branson’s great statement, that number 1 priority is to care about Your people, because they care about Your customers. Which is highly puzzling in this situation, where it is on SNO’s shoulders to ensure the whole availability of the service company stands on, and the % of pays that STORJ inc. allocates to them monthly is disproportionately small to the rest of the expenses, especially in view of the controversial “others” column…
So, to avoid general unhappiness, and strikes a company must reckon with the real needs of its people. It doesn’t matter on the one hand telling them not to buy disks, to only use what they have, because, at the same time a company is putting out a reward: will pay for every TB of data written and kept, and every TB of data sent, so these are contradictory messages, with the 2nd one being much stronger. And You cannot simply pay less, to only attract those, who actually have unused space on theirs arrays, because they don’t care to bother in 1st place then, if small reward, and if some do want to make efforts and install a node, and keep it, and service it, that’s not sustainable globally.
To offer a serious service You have to have a serious, dedicated people.
So that’s why I invoked Mises’ work, “Human Action,” to show, that people are going to do, what they’re going to do and what will be the course of theirs actions, it’s up to the company to know that, and to understand psychological motives of its target partners. Not imaginary one, but the real ones. What reality shows, who really comes to cooperate with STORJ - because there is no one other, just the reality.
I don’t even know any one here behind the strike idea, but being on the forum for 4 years, reading all post in payout discussions, watching how it was treated in the end by staff like no constructive dialogue on propositions, no real engagement about propositions people made, including mine. Mostly greeted with silences, or some really low-level attempts to dismiss the proposition with the cheap excuse in spirit of “it can’t be done”, i fully understand the motives behind the people here.
But you can allocate less than it uses, in the yaml, so its shrinking slowly.
Slowly, yes. Usually if I were to allocate “unused” space and fill up my file server to almost full with the combination of my data and the node, I would not be able to wait a month for there to be enough free space for my additional files.
So, the normal way to do it would be to allocate space that I think I would never use, but in that case I can just make my array smaller with smaller drives or fewer of them.
Seriously, I strongly think you should reconsider this post.
Ridiculous hyperbole like this just makes your side of the argument look like a rabble of malcontents that you can’t reason with. You’re not doing anyone any favours.
This is the way, but there is no extra administrative, nor monitoring effort. There is no extra load either. And even there was — storj requirements are minuscule. They don’t matter.
If you had setup solution to monitor one node, adding another to monitor is trivial. Furthermore, if you had 24/7 server likely you already had monitoring solution for your other services. So adding nodes to monitor is trivial.
Port forwarding is also not a problem — forwarding one is exactly the same effort as forwarding range.
And lastly, there is nothing extra to administer. Specify the same wallet for all nodes, and collect free money.
I don’t see a problem. I don’t see how a slight inconvenience in item 3 can compare to complete non-starters of items 1 and 2.
Of course this is a joke, as you rightly put it - ridiculous hyperbole.
This post was a response to Daki82’s call to ignore or repress dissatisfied business partners (SNO), which is stupid from a business point of view. In essence, Storj was looking for the “bottom” of the tariff, and our task is to make it clear that it has been reached, and this search method is unpleasant and offensive. Now I don’t want to expand the space or repair the equipment (spend time and money), realizing that tomorrow another herald may come out and announce that “now the tariff has again been reduced by only another 25%, and here is a link on how to do GE.”
If you want, another funny analogy - the method is similar to driving a car into which you just pour gasoline, it drives, then everything is in order. And the fact that without maintenance and investment in spare parts you will end up unexpectedly with a pile of iron, or a dead man (brakes, oh shit…) is a completely expected result of this approach.
Running storagenode not a main occupation and is an interest pursued for pleasure. It’s literally a hobby.
TOS has nothing to do with being a hobby? Maybe my hobby is trying to comply with ToS? Is playing tennis a hobby? There are rules too.
Your mistake is that you confuse the concepts of “I” and “all other people”. Every time, in every post and statement, and this has already been pointed out to you in this thread.
There are two things at play here.
- Writing style — in first person. Replace “I” in my comments with “someone” or “node operator” if you prefer.
- Some ideas and thoughts are applicable to all circumstances. And unless you elaborate what you disagree with — it’s all unproductive demagogy.
I stand by everything I wrote, and if you have questions or don’t understand something — ask, I’ll elaborate.
When I say “2+3=5, and don’t eat rat poison for breakfast, and you can’t make profit on storj” and someone says that other people may have different ideas — yeah, no shit, and they would be wrong.
Hello, I have been an operator since the beginning of the first version. I don’t write often on the forum. But will add some of my thoughts. During the last year there were many changes that only complicate the work of operators, from the latest changes on my mind - the work of GC and filewalker, not matching the average size of nodes and used space. With each update, maintaining a node becomes more time consuming, you can’t just set up it and forget about the node. Not to mention the constant decrease in rewards. I maintain my nodes purely as a hobby, only because I like the idea of decentralization. I used to spend the money I get from storj to increase storage, but with the recent changes I will have to pay extra for network maintenance. In this regard I think many operators have nothing to lose anymore. I agree with the author’s opinion and support him, although it is a difficult decision. I think many node operators will understand me too.
That’s the problem, point 1 is wrong. Not everything that seems obvious and correct to you is equally obvious and correct to everyone. And the example with 2+3=5, if you please, in the fivefold system looks like 2+3=10. And if it seems to you (this is just an example not related to reality) that you believe in the only correct God, then a Muslim may have a completely different point of view. And a Hindu, who has different gods and more than one, will not agree with you and with a Muslim.
Dude. We are not taking about system of beliefs here. It’s technology. There is only one correct answer. You have set of resources, set of constraints, and you get only one best solution to achieve the desired outcome.
Do you have any specific questions or concerns? Bring it on. Otherwise please stop flooding.
I don’t even know what does this mean. I explained to you my writing style, in case you struggle with English — and you say it’s wrong. You are criticizing my writing style? What does it have to do with anything?
I apologize for the lack of ping, this was not done on purpose. As for “I didn’t call for it,” the phrase “I would have done it like this” is close enough, it seems to me. Something like the phrase “I wouldn’t do this if I were you” is direct advice/call not to do something.