I’m reaching out to see if anyone else has been experiencing similar issues or has insights into what might be happening.
I’ve been an operator since the early days, managing approximately 100TB of data across various locations over Europe. Recently, I’ve noticed something concerning: two of my nodes have dramatically shrunk in capacity over the last few months, from 40TB down to 18-20TB each. What’s more worrying is that this shrinkage seems to be continuing.
I’m wondering if this is a new trend that others have observed. I don’t see the consistent growth I used to expect, and I’m left questioning if this is just a perception or something more systemic.
Has anyone else experienced similar reductions in data storage capacity? Is there something I’m missing that could be causing this? Any advice or insights would be greatly appreciated!
Storj cleaned data from free accounts, so today there is only payd data and test data in the system, test data is with around 30 day TTL, so it delete itself, so storj upload new one also.
I’ve noticed a change in my approach to data storage. I used to focus on buying new hardware and expanding my systems. Now, the trend seems different—I’m looking at ways to consolidate systems and cut costs. This has left me with several unused hard drives.
I’m beginning to worry if Storj is still the right path for me. Is the European region in decline? Or the whole Ecosystem ?
I was under the impression that, due to geographic proximity, I would primarily receive EU data. However, it seems like I’m getting data from all regions.
Apparently not insignificant amounts of EU data was an abuse of free accounts, mainly for Chia plots. Some of that got deleted at the end of the last month (along with some US data), but I think we are still waiting for BF to actually delete that from the nodes.
There was a question of how much data it actually was, but was left unanswered, probably to avoid panic.
So don’t panic! and keep on rollin’, give it a few more months and this situation hopefully will stabilize.
The geographic proximity is important only for geofence data (to be compliant with GDPR), in other cases your node would receive data from all regions, there is a speed of the connection between your node and the customer starts to play a role. It’s not necessarily a geographical proximity.
So better to allow all others. The customers may also have an account on US1, but physically located in Europe and vice versa.
Thanks for the clarifications so far. I managed to get through the major deletions, and my nodes have recovered. However, it feels like we’re now experiencing a real downward trend. I want to make sure this isn’t due to my installation.
If others feel the same, I might consider exiting the project. But if this isn’t confirmed by others, I’m willing to search for any issues on my end again, even though I haven’t changed anything technically. Of course, I’ve applied updates, but my system’s stability has been good.
I’d appreciate any insights from those who have noticed similar patterns or from anyone who can confirm this isn’t a widespread issue.
This could have never worked long term. If it was feasible to buy new hardware storj would do it themselves. They would not need you.
Storj only make sense as conceived — to make use of already existing idle capacity. To reimburse you somewhat for the use of idle capacity you are overpaying for.
To roughly about a third of the world storage capacity. That’s plenty.
Here is why. Datacenters and home users alike always do and will have spare capacity. Normally datacenter add capacity when utilization reaches 60-80%. This means there is always 20-40% of unused capacity that can be shared with storj for the time being.
Think about it: if you anticipate that you need another 20TB of space within a year, would you just buy 20TB today, or would you buy more, to avoid replacing drives again in a year?
