Disqualification

[Alexey]

@Pac

In the current state of things, I don’t see why any SNO would want to keep a node online when disqualified on at least one satellite?

All satellites pay independently. So other satellites will still pay for usage.
The only reason to shutdown the node completely, if all satellites disqualified your node.

@Pac

It makes sense to disqualify a node if it fails at providing the service

This is the exact reason for disqualifying - the node is online, but data unavailable => did not provide the service => disqualification

@Pac

Why didn’t fry get an e-mail notification telling them that something was starting to fail on some sat’,

You can add your idea or vote for existing here: https://ideas.storj.io
FYI - we design the suspend mode which should be applied before the actual disqualification:

Design Draft: Storage Node "Suspended" State

Hi everyone, we are working on designing a plan for how to handle what we call “unknown” audit errors. In the past, we treated them the same way as normal audit failures, which caused a lot of nodes to get disqualified for simple configuration issues, rather than because they were trying to cheat. We have a blueprint for the new feature here, and would appreciate any feedback, big or small: https://github.com/storj/storj/pull/3778