When, after midnight on the 1st, can I finally shut down the nodes without affecting my payment for the previous month? Is there a specific time (hours)?
Midnight of the first of the month is not special. You will be paid for all service provided. You will not be paid held amount if you did not go through graceful exit process. But that amount is negligible and therefore irrelevant
1 Like
Seems you are too obsessed of your node. Please try to do not see it and do not touch it in the next 10 months (just keep it online, but if something would happen, you will be notified to the provided email address).
You have started it, and it’s online? Ok, now, please go further and do your usual doing, just live, and, please, forget about it.
2 Likes
I’ve been running 40 nodes on the network for four years now. But I see no point in doing so any longer. I’m completely disappointed in STORJ. Nothing’s happening, just treading water. Over the past four years, each node has 3-5 terabytes of data and hasn’t grown at all. Over the past four years, under conditions of total war, I’ve built such an infrastructure for online stability for the nodes that one would be envious. But my efforts are futile. STORJ doesn’t appreciate it. It’s impossible to maintain nodes on such miserable rates.
6 Likes
Here we go again.
Then rm -rf? What’s stopping you?
Are you not getting paid for the spare capacity and bandwidth that otherwise you would not be paid for? I would contact storj support and investigate the accounting glitch. Or have you just redefined the word “nothing”?
So, you are paid $6/month per node for doing absolutely nothing. Better than 0. Yet, you are still complaining.
Nobody asked you to. The point was to run nodes on the existing already online hardware. Nodes are expected to be volatile and disposable. Doing anythign at all for nodes is against common sense, let alone building infrastructure for them. Did you .. read the whitepaper?
And here is your problem: your suffering is self-inflicted. Storj payouts are not meant to take your kids through college. It’s meant to offset your costs of running your existing servers. Servers, that woudl be running if storj woudl not have been in the picture. Until you understand this you will be pissed for all the wrong reasons.
Storj appreciates this, and the amount of appreciation is $1.5/TB/M for storage, and $2/TB for egress. Exactly as agreed. As you agreed.
So I don’t understand what’s is this complaining and whining is for. You made a mistake, you did not read the docs, you built a storj node empire atop of misunderstood premises, fine, delete nodes now, stop wasting energy running the hardware, and move on. All this performative disappointment is misplaced and inappropriate.
5 Likes
If you will live under constantly falling bombs, missiles, 20 hours a day without electricity - will reason in a similar tone and form.
Your living conditions are irrelevant to whether customer demand grows on your nodes or how payouts are calculated; if it’s not worth it, shut them down.
Invoking “bombs” and “no electricity” is an appeal-to-pity to farm sympathy.
2 Likes
What else can your infrastructure be used for? Something to help your fellow citizens? Media server, chat server.
How are you powering your setup to maintain uptime, with such poor power stability?
But as a fact growth should have been much higher for years now.
And that previous owners have sold seems to indicate that their expectations have not been met as well.
1 Like
Why? Why should it be higher? I could say that nobody guaranteed anything, and that it seems to be the public network has served its purpose as proof of concept and will die down, or continue as a test polygon, and storj will focus on something else, but this would all be speculations that would not matter anyway, because, one, I don’t know, and the other – this is not what this topic was ever about.
The verifiable fact is: Running storagenode on a public network today is still better than not running one, regardless of level of income it provides, so these performative hardship posts “I’m keeping nodes alive under fire but storj did not live up to the wild expectations I invented so I’ll publicly slam the door” are perplexing to put it mildly.
Don’t like it – leave. Like it – stay. There is literally nothing to discuss. This is non-actionable.
Because the amount of data created and stored worldwide is exploding. Providers are building exabyte datastores for their customers and even providers that came to market later than Storj have been able to gather more data from customers than Storj has today.
For me that’s the baseline of what @pdeline06 is saying. The growth rate is too slow.
3 Likes
I also see the growth rate as far too low. I started my first node at the end of 2020. When I look at the stored data, it’s sad. New data centers are being built, hard drives are almost sold out, and the price of an HDD is going up. I keep asking myself, where is Storj, where are the customers? In my opinion, Storj is simply unknown globally. The project itself is brilliant. But without customer data, it is doomed to fail. And currently, there are more and more nodes and, of course, more free space. My nodes currently only know the way down.
3 Likes
It appears as if they know how to code but not how to bring it to the market.
In the past there were dreams of Exabyte scaling, but the truth is, we haven’t even reached 100 PBs while companies like Wasabi (founded in 2017 or something later than Storj) is storing 3 Exabytes today and just received another $70M in equity funding: Wasabi Raises $70M in New Equity to Power the Next Era of Data Infrastructure | AFP.com
Storj didn’t live up to the expecations of the former owners which is why they decided to sell. The critical question now is whether the new owners will better serve Storj’s mission. Only time will tell. So far they remain awkwardly silent.
5 Likes
There seem to be two different angles at this:
- whether node operators shall theatrically slam the door behind themselves because they don’t get more free money. I think they should not. I think it’s childish, entitled, and infantile behavior.
- whether storj as a company could grow more. I can’t comment on that because I don’t know. What they offer — high latency very high bandwidth thing — is not directly comparable to conventional storage companies, but fine, more growth is better, hard to disagree.
- (edit: Three, whether public network is at all indicative of storj growth.)
And yet, if storj grew faster, and stored more data, I don’t think node operators would earn more. There would simply be be more node operators: The current state appears to be stable. The amount of money per operator has stabilized, increasing total payout won’t increase per/operator earnings, let alone if you remember storj wants to keep hard cap on total operator payments in the first place.
Back when they first stated that we had a) higher payouts b) different RS c) less paid space and d) lower customer pricing. So the cap was limiting their bleeding. But as soon as they can run at-a-profit: SNO payouts can be anything - because then every $1 given to a SNO means more-than-$1 collected from a customer 
I hope they’re already profitable… but just haven’t told us yet 
. We need another Town Hall…
1 Like
Right. can be. Does not mean will or should. Storj will not be paying operators more just out of sheer generosity. Operators already have proven that the current total compensation amount – not just rates – is more than sufficient to keep providing service. This is how operators value their work – about $15/month per subnet. Regardless of utilization. How do we know – we have these payout rates now and people don’t leave in droves, that’s how.
So if there will be more data on the network – not slashing payout rates would be throwing money down the drain. Operators are staying in network for less, why pay them more? So, rates will be slushed (or inflation does it for therm), and total operator compensation will remain flat.
Storj will still retain a knob to moderate surge capacity, but that would be second order effect.
So while I wish storj all the best, I don’t expect to ever be compensated more than today. Because it would not make sense.
I mean, why not?. Let the company know why you are shutting down 40 nodes.
Let other maybe potential SNOs know. Vent. I am fine with that.
At least what they were saying is that Vivint was so happy with the test results that they signed the contract. Should be good for anything then, at least not worse than a Wasabi or Backblaze data center somewhere, if we put certificates off the table.
It should be. It is their signature product and at least it was said that they do not advertise Select pro-actively to customers. But I agree that the missing complinace certifications for the global network might be a burden. There is also no statement if there is progress on that issue.
Are you serious? You must be in another galaxy. 40 nodes are 4-5-6 dollars a month and no more. Or am I special and just that lucky?
I think the “continent” is the word you were looking for.
This is observable performance.
I have few other nodes, one in Arizona, and the other in south California, connected over VPN, because they don't have public IP, they behave somewhat differently:
So I would say about $15/month per node is what I observe consistently.
If the connection is garbage -- for example, I have one goofy node connected over AirVPN, on a shoddy hardware -- just for comparison:
(it shows middle finger to the world, because it’s indeed a very underperforming node).
This is one point. Another – just look at https://storjnet.info, look at last payout amount and divide the total payout by number of nodes. This is consistent with total amount money storj wants to pay monthly to operators (quite under 130k), that with the current obnoxious number of nodes is under $4/node. And yet, new nodes join daily. What does it tell you? That people are perfectly content with $4/node expected payout. And it can, and should, be further reduced, which is effectively already happening. Once you see nodes joining balance out nodes leaving – that would be the stable amount per node operator.
This is non-actionable. If you described your connectivity, configuration, routing, etc, then someone would be able to triage it for you, or explain why this is the best you can expect; on the other hand, per above – this is not a bad outcome.
It’s possible due to a low reputation of these nodes, or perhaps because you are close to EU, where the most of nodes are concentrated accordingly map, so the competition between EU nodes is higher.