Host Multiple Nodes

Today I receive this mail:

You can now request more than one auth token and set up additional Nodes using the same email address you used previously.

You need a unique auth token for each Node you set up. You can only request one token at a time when using the same email address for an additional Node. We recommend a separate HDD and CPU for each Node you set up. Once your first token is redeemed, you need to request a new auth token; otherwise, the system will reissue the same token.

We need more Nodes and more storage capacity to increase the resiliency and size of the Storj network. Demand for the Tardigrade waitlist is currently exceeding our Node capacity, so please set up more Nodes and refer your friends so that they can be vetted in time for our product launch.

Thanks again for your help building the decentralized future.


The Storj Labs Team

I would like to discuss about another option:

  1. How about expand existing nodes? (storage space and network thruput) Many SNO can do it easy.
  2. At this moment some SNO have 100+ Mbit (1Gbit) channels which are used by storagenode not more than 40Mbit, how about utilizing it in a more effective way?
  3. Some SNO have industrial class hardware and storages (Servers with redundant raid and HA clusters, failover channels), do we have options for this SNO? (I listened on town hall about special offers for Industrial SNO)

About me: I personally have 4 storage nodes on different ISP 1Gbit+500Mbit+1Gbit+100Mbit channels with at list 10+TB per node. I would like to help with expend network capacity but not have more locations, but I can expend existing nodes (storage capacity and network throughput), so another option will be very useful for me and other SNO that can’t set up more nodes but can harden and expand existing.



I run 3 Nodes on different ISP`s with nearly the same Hardware Setup.
The difference between the workload is huge even though the hardware usage of all 3 Nodes
is only 1% for now.

The Node with the slowest Connection 1Gbit/100mbit is actually 2-3x more used as the fastest one
on 1Gbit/1Gbit and both still on low hardware usage. May the Location gets effect?

Maybe maybe not, but to run multiple Nodes on same IP is desirable? how?
Sometimes i have the impression that a singe rpi3 Node connected on 10mbit and a USB 2.0 HDD
will be more used as a my industrial hardware setup with redundancy power supplies, raid 0…

I’m sure that many SNO had some more options on single locations like me to grow the Server via VMware or further iSCSI raids. That would be much more effective than multiple servers on same IP.

Please use more capacity from existing Nodes.


so now we can run multiple nodes with the same ip and be able to get more data or will it be like in the past with no additional data as a single storagenode confused here, ??? need to remove ip filter to make it worth while

1 Like

Same as before same amount for multiple vetted nodes on same IP


Not sure, more Server on one Location with same ISP will not really help to increase the resiliency.
Especially for those SNO’s who build her Nodes already fail-safe.

But would be nice to know. If so, i’m sure that some SNO’s could start some more Servers
who may will increase the capacity of storage, but rather less reliability…

Also you could implement an “expert mode” in the config.yaml to increase the usage
from single Nodes. So SNO’s where be able to set up her Nodes so fast and big as possible
without losing efficiency because they need to host multiple machines.

But anyway… can someone answer this question?


No, that is not the case. You still will not get any more data by running multiple nodes on the same IP now. Please only set up new nodes on same IP if the prior node is almost full already. Otherwise, please set up any new node in a different physical location and IP. We are sorry if that was not clearly stated in the email about setting up multiple nodes.

1 Like

if you want more nodes just adjust the rule to 2 node per /24
if you want more capacity fill our existing channels
if you want something other fix you invite service. I receive 2 invite when i ask 10, no one invite sent to me at same email after new node is up.
All 2 invite that i received sent from different IP with different emails.
Coincidence? I Don’t think so. Remove yours filters or you get 0.1 From what you expect

1 Like

I understand your frustration but have you recently tried getting an invite. There was a fix that was applied for an issue that didn’t give new codes to same email address. Use Chrome or Firefox, dont use IE, Edge or Brave.

Thanks for your observations regarding our signup process. Here are some details that may help explain how the process currently works.

  1. Please be sure to use Chrome or Firefox with ad-blockers disabled when making your request
  2. Only submit a new request from same email address after you have already claimed the last token you requested from that address
  3. Only one auth token per day will be issued, even if you already finished setting up your last node with token requested from same email address
  4. If you set up more than one node on the same IP or subnet, they will be treated as a single node and vetting time will increase the more nodes you try to bring online simultaneously on same IP/subnet. Changing this would go against the whole principle of decentralization which is what makes our network resilient.
  5. Sending out the Invite emails will be throttled during times when we receive a high rate of simultaneous requests for auth tokens. So it is possible that you may need to wait longer than during low demand times for your invite to arrive.
  6. We would be happy to follow up on the status of your invites, if you would like us to do so, please file a support ticket with the list of email addresses you used to sign up.
1 Like

I think those 6 points should be first displayed as pop up in the sign up page or on the left side of the page.

Also I just now observed if I submit the form without clicking anything a warning with link is shown with text “Learn more about our node requirements.” It redirects to documentation home page rather than

I think giving a warning like a banner at the top would also do the trick or notify user “Browser not supported” if sign up page is opened in non Chrome/Firefox.

PS: As I was writing this reply I got invite code even without filling any form details. I guess the cookie still exists which was stored when I previously requested an invite. This cookie should have an expiration date :slight_smile:


Yes I agree with you and have already made most of these same observations before to our team. I have forwarded your comment so hopefully they may soon implement it.


Very strange behavior. Send a letter urging me to create a node per disk, and put all possible obstacles on receiving invites.

I’m with @Odmin and @Solu regarding the same concerns about “equal usage” of all nodes on the network currently.

I do sympathize with the issues related to unequal distribution of data on the network for resiliency purposes that the network has to balance. Clearly from the responses above in this thread node utilization is not ‘equally distributed’. (In a different post there seem to be huge throughput swings in monthly data usage for Nov to date “median”: 1TB, “low”: 700GB, “high”: 1.2TB*)

At the town hall I asked a question which revolved around “quality of service” checks not being in place. This was intended to ask about prioritization of node selection based on request response time and data throughput in addition to the current checks. As opposed to addressing this on the ‘basic’ service, I agree it is a good balance to create different tiers of data storage service in order to take advantage of advanced hardware, provide higher monetary incentives, and not destabilize the network data distribution for ‘basic’ service as a whole. Those of us using enterprise hardware who are taking into account reliability and response time will benefit much more with the upcoming higher grades of data service provisioning levels.

*These numbers are compiled from a VERY small sample size, but the fact that it’s gaping so wide should raise questions.


I understand how lab’s invite filter works.
This is protection from True SNO’s. It is slow process to create more nodes for more hdd.
This protection Will not stop intruders and dishonest operators.
Do not disgrace. Take it away and then your call to more nodes will lead to something good

And i see many messages private or public about newbies can’t receive first invite. And wait, wait… when it come. I answer - now there is no queue. If you did not receive an invite in a few minutes you will not receive it. Repeat with another mail, etc.

Dear storlabs, you fight yourself


Hi Im sorry about your frustration. Our intention is never to frustrate the users! We are trying very hard to deliver a good experience to everyone while also pushing hard to improve the product and make it the best it can be.

We do read and consider feedback like yours & we’re working to improve processes such as the ones discussed here. Please bear with us as we continue to iterate :slight_smile:


How about my qustions?

What a Storj Lab thinking about it?

you may want to ask these questions on the upcoming townhall meeting and/or post on the ideas portal. The third point I believe is already being considered at least on a limited scale, and interested parties can submit their proposals to for consideration.

1 Like

Thanks @heunland
Will address these questions for the next town hall. About the third point, I already sent a proposition to

Thanks again for your reply!


I guess the bottleneck lies at the end of the customer. If he down or uploads 80+ pieces at the same time then his bandwidth is split between the nodes.

Yes, it true, but we have not only one customer :slightly_smiling_face:
I have monitoring that catch-all picks every second, and I not registered spikes more 40Mbit.
Usual picture seems like that:

1 Like