Only facts that EU-North satellite only for space reservation

So we have 3 (!!!) test satellites!
The question arises, why create a new satellite and turn off the old one? Why not keep using the existing ones? In addition, the percentage of payments for many approached 100% … But wait a minute I think that it’s profitable.

  1. The satellite was stopped using almost immediately after that many nodes began to receive 100%.
  2. The satellite is not used, but it is not turned off either, which means that the deposit is not paid

By the way, @Odmin ! I remember that you were interested to know the statuses of the satellites. Look at Stephan’s message :slight_smile:

Whats the problem with 3 test satellites?

Mine specifically is not shutdown in the sense of “shutdown”, rather than repurposed soon.
In terms of why have multiple satellites to test? Because there are tests that have to be executed side by side to notice difference more granular and rule out other environmental issues.
In terms of the hold escrow i can assure you, that all nodes will get their amount paid when the satellites is fully shutdown. That noted, my satellite currently still holds 25TB of “user” data, coming in at ~75TB in the network.

On another note, keeping a satellite running without any load on it, will cost more money than its worth to withold the payment for SNO’s. Again, these assumptions are not helpful for a proper and fact based discussion.

Look at Stephan’s message

My Name is Stefan. Thanks for keeping an eye on it.


pretty sure that he started out claiming he lost a file… or that’s how i understood it…
i was just pondering if he was going to produce any actual proof of his claim…

[quote=“donald.m.motsinger, post:27, topic:8149, full:true”]

i also believe that in that case after some discussion we ended finding out that he had plenty of backups … so even that he lost his files on the v2 network he still had them… lol
this is to much … my anger meter is hitting the red…
and now i feel like a troll for kicking life back into this… tsk tsk

but hey, a great update from stefan so thats going to be interesting to see what that secret project is about… i guess this thread was not a total waste then

“One will never reach ones destination, if one stops to throw stones at every dog that barks on the way…” winston churchill :smiley:


Hi @stefanbenten !

I am really nice to see you here! you are a very rare guest on this forum :slight_smile:

Thanks for explaining! I was a little bit confused with north satellite

P.S. I don’t know why everyone compares different month of repair traffic, I can share the current status of this month:

Storage in PB*h

As you can see, storage about the same

And I also can confirm that repair traffic is different (north is lowest)

1 Like

But what about this?

Sorry, my mistake.


I think that’s based on the local uplink settings, not the satellite settings.

It didn’t. I just look back on my node that was on that satellite since it launched. The first 2 months it had a few hundred KB of repair traffic. Month 3 only a few hundred MB. Starting month 4 it finally got into the GB’s. Sounds pretty damn similar to europe-north-1, which is now in its 4th month and is showing 1GB repair already.

Edit: Should have scrolled down more, some of this was already answered.


Shutdown from its current task :slight_smile:
I cannot share more details yet, but as it probably is well estabillished, it would be a shame to bury it.

Hey @Odmin!

Comparing the same months is not a good idea. You might want to compare the months since the satellite is “alive”. Example given:

Satellite A joins 05/2000.
Satellite B joins 10/2000.

If you upload data from 05/2000 straight and keep the same pace going after 10/2000, then Satellite A will hit his first noticable repair at, lets say, 02/2001. (~8 months existance). At the same time, its unlikely that Satellite B will have the same amount, as the data on it is only 3 months old. Based on our current observations and same network behavior in terms of node churn and growth, Satellite B should not start significant repair before 07/2001.
I hope this makes it a little bit clearer.


Thanks a lot! It absolutely clear now :+1:
Your explains is always clear and I like it.
I can say again, I really nice to see you here! :slight_smile:


Main problem with “game” with “held rotation”. However, I was even more surprised to hear news about your satellite.

In any case, it will be extremely interesting to know how the satellite will work. Yesterday I had about 30-35% transmission errors on exit. The nodes are either out of place or too slow. And there are very few of them.

UPD. Сan you give the number of active nodes with an accuracy of hundreds?

I can encourage you to run a full storj-sim setup yourself or dive into operate and enclosed environment yourself to test such things. You will notice pretty quickly, that many things couple very tightly together.

In terms of your definition as a “game”, i can see why you feel like this, but at the same time i can assure, that we do not want to “play”, rather than go at a quicker pace. If it is more comfortable for you, we would shut down either of the test satellites and go at like 33% development speed. Just seeing it from the negative the entire day, will not help any of us. Flip side of your “game” is that if you are vetted on all satellites, and they keep the same load up, you will earn $$$. :slight_smile:

In terms of network node count i can share without a doubt that we surpassed 42. :smiley:
Nerd jokes aside, we have ~8.1k nodes that reported/offered a disk_free space value to my satellite in the last hour.


WOW! I don’t believe it because I personally noticed dozens of nodes without free space, which the satellite gave me. HOWEVER, I have to admit that I was wrong (since my guesses are subjective, and your data is objective) and the number of nodes exceeded my expectations at times.

Thanks for the answers, it was very helpful. :+1:t2:

Glad that it helped you.

Please note, that our selection code is not perfect yet. By any means!
A simple example as it currently works still:
Your node is advertising the same space to all satellites across the network, which uses that value until the next report comes in. In that interval, all satellites can hammer your node full with uploads and the given satellite would still select your full node as destination for repair puts/ graceful exit transfers and normal uploads.

We are slowly making progress. Rome was also not built in one day :slight_smile:


For what it’s worth, each piece transfer during graceful exit is tried 5 times on different nodes. So the chances of failing a piece even if you fail 35% of transfers is about 0.5%. Since you can fail up to (I believe) 10% on graceful exit, this is not going to effect the end result. Though the last in depth report didn’t show anywhere near the percentages you’re mentioning. As far as I know it’s closer to 10% transfer failures. At that point there is a 0.001% chance of a piece transfer failing all 5 tries.


sure burned in a day tho… xD
but i suppose that’s why they invented the fire-brigade…

also it’s easy to have 8k nodes when some people are on 8-10 different ip/subnets just so they can exploit the current and very poorly designed ip/subnet nodes data allocation scheme… a guy like that might be running 40-80 nodes on one or two servers…


I understand that this is within safe limits. I just looked from the point of view of the end client, where there is no such possibility.

There is though, since each upload starts 110 uploads there is plenty of overhead to deal with a few failed transfers. As Stefan said, it could still be improved, but shouldn’t be much of a problem already.

If you reperpes your sattelite do you change it’s ID and make it clean, as lot of peple made GE from there, as was told it will be shuted down, and there was lot of money in held amount than can be used for upgrade.

1 Like

I can say for sure, that my satellite ID will not change.
That said, i or more specifically we at Storj are seeing what the best options are to “reset” it.
First of the tasks is to pay out the held amount, then the rest can be discussed/done.