It’s probably one of the ways Storj ensures that the network has the capacity is advertises.
I can make my node run on a 1TB hard drive and claim to have 100TB and Storj would have no way of knowing it unless they try to fill my node. If my node has 7TB of data and passes audits, then it is pretty much guaranteed that the node actually has 7TB capacity.
I don’t EXPECT it from Storjlabs either. But it’s not like it’s the same thing. You obviously couldn’t tell us what customers are going to do. But for now most data is still test data. That’s not surprising since production launch only just happened and it’s all just getting started. But it does mean that a little more can be shared about that data. We already know the data from the old test satellite will be deleted. We already know this will have a rather large impact on disk space used. What would it hurt to give a rough indication of when and how much will be replaced on the new test satellite?
I appreciate the existence of this paid test data and traffic to begin with. And I realize you’re doing this to keep us SNOs happy while you’re getting more customers onboarded. All of that is very welcome and I thank you for that. So while I don’t think we’re owed more information about when data will be removed. I’d still appreciate a heads up while that’s still possible.
Oh and btw. This could work both ways. If you expect a massive customer would increase demand by a lot. I might just prepare and expand my node if it’s announced beforehand. Should that situation ever arise, the possibility of informing and mobilizing the SNO base to increase capacity may be a nice tool to have on your belt.
regarding Europe-North-1, I believe this was already answered in this post:
and please note that transfer.sh is feeding real data to the network, not random test data, so it would be difficult to predict what volume of data traffic will result. Regarding Saltlake satellite, I have asked @john to give further details.
@heunland I’ll get a more detailed description on the test plan posted this week that should provide more visibility into our process and what the SNO community can expect over the coming months.
I was referring to saltlake and stefanbenten. But I’ll wait for John’s post. Thanks!
For now, at present time and if it continues, April will be a very low payment as well 
I thought I had enough free space on my 7 nodes totaling 24TB. 50% of those are full, 5 nodes, with ingress data
Damn it…it hardly pays the electricity bill!
Yea I tried to make that point as well but was a bit “downvoted”.
My node is growing with 250GB per day, that’s 7.6TB a month. My 10TB node will be full in May, and then the node has been running for 3 months.
Egress is 4-10GB/day. 96% of all traffic is now free for the network (I’m still not counting the “cold storage” as its not enough to make any node profitable)
The ONLY good news is that electricity costs as gone down a bit due to all industries have to close down due to covid19. But as we are also staying at home the consumption has gone up.
That statement is simply not true but you keep bringing it up…
Having even a 3TB hdd will give you around 3.75$ for 2.5TB.
That means your node can use 20W at 0.25$ per kWh.
So find a node that uses less power and your node is profitable if you only count running costs, which is the correct way because you are not supposed to buy hardware.
A rpi4 with an external hdd easily stays below 20W.
Qed
12tb used equals almost 100W at 0.25$/kwh with no egress at all. If your node needs more power and you only use it for storj, you might be doing something wrong… Or you both have extremely high electricity costs.
On the other hand, it may not be worth the time (setting up, looking after the node etc) and hard drive wear for less then $4/month.
EDIT:Also, you do not get the full payment for a year because of escrow and if you really try to minimize power usage, you run increased risk of being disqualified before even reaching that point.
Sure, but that is a personal consideration. You can bring that argument but you can’t say storj doesn’t even cover electricity.
??? How did you come up with that? You need to have your node online 24/7 even without any traffic…and that costs power!
You may need a UPS and that uses some power too.
Calculate? Pentium has a good point about the held back amount though.
12TB used without egress equals a payment of 18$, which is at 0.25$/kwh 100W that your node can draw constantly.
So let’s say you have a held back amount of 50%, that still means you can use 50W and the payment would cover those.
That is not a requirement…
This all doesn’t even cover the fact that storj is trying to maintain 10% egress, which means a node with 12TB of data can actually (almost) expect to get at least 1TB of egress, which is 20$.
So even at 50% held back that is 10$, which is an additional 50W.
So at current rates and expectations a 12TB node with 50% held back amount can still use 100W.
I agree with kevink, Also I run my machines anyways and im not getting paid for it so running an extra hard drive doesnt break the bank even if I choose to buy a UPS for a backup power for this. I run a server in my house that runs 24/7 using well over 1000watts in a month with 7 hard drives running. A little ole storagenode running doesnt change my elect bill at the end of the month.
Let’s just give John some time to respond to this. I think some people are missing out because download is happening on an old satellite and only nodes that were around for a while are seeing the benefit. My node is looking like it will make $50 this month (currently 9TB stored). So it’s not all bad. I wouldn’t be surprised if this download moves to the saltlake satellite soon and everyone will be getting their piece of the pie.