Let me give it a shot.
- You would be creating a new identity and signing it with a new token. Just make sure you use another name like storagenode2 to create and sign the identity. You’ll also be creating a second container, which then also needs a different name, so storagenode2 could be used there as well. You need to use a different port for this node as well, so do the port forwarding and firewall rules for another port (like 28968). In the docker run command you would then change the ports in the address and the first port in the -p parameter.
-p 28968:28967The second port stays the same, that’s the port used inside the container by the storagenode. - You want to give the second node some time to get vetted while the first node can still do full duty. I’d say 75% is probably a good time to add another one, so you’re pretty much at that point.
- I know there is work being done for a windows based install and binaries for most OS’s that don’t require docker. I think there will likely be a GUI as well, but not sure there are plans to have that support multiple nodes in one interface. This sounds like a good question for the upcoming town hall. https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_i_e4wM3JQheAuWzBw_pIVg
- You’re right and you’re wrong. It depends on what your question is. Between 2x2TB or 1x4TB there is no advantage. But 2x2TB would indeed have an advantage in egress over 1x2TB if there is more than 2TB of data stored on the nodes combined. The shorter version, if you store more data, you generally get more egress as well. But that can be achieved by having a larger single node as well as multiple smaller nodes. There is no advantage to doing the second just for income. It should be about equal.