Crust Test v2 (concluded)


The RUST_BACKTRACE environment variable will give you a backtrace.

I don’t know much but wonder it’s something like

$ RUST_BACKTRACE=1 command

will spawn debug info. That likely being a generic dump suggestion, rather than SAFE devs comment. Unclear if that’s useful on this though…


Guess I’m safely_connected now! :tada:
Although 51% doesn’t sound that great…well at least it is not 49%, so I can say that I’m connected to the majority. :grin:


Just noting I had to update my IP address, to run another instance now… which is odd since this laptop is plain vanilla wireless to a BT internet connection and I wouldn’t expect that to change IP address. Perhaps it did update IP mid morning and that’s the route of 309:17.

I wonder if the IP registration is too strongly picking up on a visit to the forum… I perhaps visited the forum from work - so would have been a different IP… probably also a mobile one.

Surely the IP registration is a one off validation and not an ongoing check??..


@Zoki’s and my issue with mobile hotspots look similar. Here’s mine:


The only way to heaven is a stationary computer. :wink: Recently calibrateted my system fans so it is silent and cool, perfect for running background apps. :slightly_smiling_face:


After restart now at 85% with direct connections being the most successful! :slightly_smiling_face:
I’m on Linux Kubuntu 18.04


China 97%


Not sure if it means anything but I’ve noticed a few of my attempted connections are not logged on the dashboard


Did you refresh?..


Yeah I’ve refreshed, one connection will be there and then a couple will be missing then the next few will be there

Touch me baby wasn’t on the dashboard on this example.


Do you retry? Say after 1 second then 5 seconds then 10 seconds. Some of these echo services are not 100% responsive and lose some requests, especially if too many requests are coming in. And hey this crust test is adding a little to that load.


I see the same:

Successfully connected with zbsbMac2 (956eb9..)
TCP result: (us) <-> (them), connected in 371.640524ms
UDP result: (us) <-> (them), connected in 1.044954094s
Direct connection result: (us) <-> (them)
Successful connections: ["kip (6611ae..)", "Vort (61f438..)", "Optimator (872b22..)", "Wes_because_it_crashed (783dae..)", "Salvorin Fex (ef3511..)", "iwensfortis (6c966e..)", "hamarana (492932..)", "nullus (6cb412..)", "Darius (fbeefa..)", "Salvorin Mac (db56ed..)", "Rick Sanchez (C-137) (3d6269..)", "dimitar (e22b73..)", "AllNamesRefused (bb468b..)", "DASK (8448a2..)", "Warz (81215f..)", "neo_was_here (792cc1..)", "zbsbMac2 (956eb9..)"]
Failed connections: ["opacey (058ca6..)", "gmd (128c60..)", "Stephan8 (7f54ab..)", "GeorgeGallowaysRemaingFollicle (697f61..)", "Quetzalcoatl (754e93..)", "Hunter-Oakland-CA-USA (e66854..)", "你好世界 (5574d5..)", "eddyjohnathan (8c27fd..)", "Lao\'c-K (e0ef8d..)", "Michael_Hills (42411b..)"]
Attempted connections: ["Salvorin Fex (ef3511..)", "opacey (058ca6..)", "gmd (128c60..)", "Stephan8 (7f54ab..)", "iwensfortis (6c966e..)", "kip (6611ae..)", "Rick Sanchez (C-137) (3d6269..)", "GeorgeGallowaysRemaingFollicle (697f61..)", "hamarana (492932..)", "Quetzalcoatl (754e93..)", "Vort (61f438..)", "Hunter-Oakland-CA-USA (e66854..)", "Optimator (872b22..)", "Wes_because_it_crashed (783dae..)", "dimitar (e22b73..)", "你好世界 (5574d5..)", "nullus (6cb412..)", "AllNamesRefused (bb468b..)", "DASK (8448a2..)", "eddyjohnathan (8c27fd..)", "Lao\'c-K (e0ef8d..)", "Warz (81215f..)", "Michael_Hills (42411b..)", "Darius (fbeefa..)", "Salvorin Mac (db56ed..)", "neo_was_here (792cc1..)", "zbsbMac2 (956eb9..)"]

Could the white spaces or the special character in my name (Sascha’s baking day) cause problems? Just a thought.

I would be good if only currently connected names were selectable on the dashboard. I now have to make up new names in order not to get mixed up with old instances of “Sascha”.

I notice my Linux Mint system with 16 GB memory is using swap even though there should be no need for it. Strange. Will restart machine soon.


Same here, still using my technicolor home router


After several test runs, the last of around 36hrs, my Ubuntu 18.04 16Gb box exited with the familiar error

All available peers have been attempted to be reached. Checking for new peers every 10 seconds.
ERROR 12:41:13.271416784 [client] Failed to get our connection info: Rendezvous with server failed for both Tcp and Udp - could not obtain our external address
thread 'main' panicked at 'Aborting due to the previous error', examples/
note: Run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` for a backtrace.

So I’m going to do just that

And they’re off at Plumpton…

willie@gagarin:~/projects/maidsafe/crust_test-v0.2.0-linux-x64$ RUST_BACKTRACE=1 ./client
Please enter your name (or press Enter to keep it blank): rustybacktrace McRustyface
INFO 15:02:42.307666307 [client] Our public ID: 7cab4d..
INFO 15:02:42.307718927 [client] Attempting bootstrap...
INFO 15:02:42.372651414 [client] Connected to 8f6155.. (
INFO 15:02:42.436034376 [client] Detecting NAT type...
INFO 15:02:42.539310482 [client] Detected NAT type for TCP EIM
INFO 15:02:42.539346591 [client] Detected NAT type for UDP EIM
INFO 15:02:42.539356679 [client] Detected OS type: Linux
INFO 15:02:42.539365327 [client] IGD failed
INFO 15:02:42.886722813 [client] Attempting to connect with eddyjohncash (145644..)...
INFO 15:02:43.983490657 [client] Attempting to connect with dimitar (e22b73..)...
INFO 15:02:44.736390764 [client] 
Successfully connected with dimitar (e22b73..)


Looking good so far. I was wondering if there are any stats as well about how many unique users are running this test?


I don’t know but wonder is it just [successful + failed] divide by three, given there seems to be three kinds of connection?.. though ‘unique’ wouldn’t be confirmed from that if users did start another instance.


On a 12 meg download adsl connection and 1meg up


It looks as though there might be room for improvement but what should definitely be remembered is even though there may be more failed connections compared to successful connections, in some cases, we’re still all connected!!! :smiley: And globally we’re doing pretty darn great imo!!! Honestly this seems to be a very successful test.

I’d love to see a future medium blogpost showing just how many countries and global connections we’ve had from these tests.


this may be a stupid question… but does it actually make a difference how I am able to connect? are there speed/latency etc differences between TCP, UDP and direct connections? or am I good as long as one of these gets through?


There are differences between TCP and UDP you need both. TCP is used for Chats and Messengers and UDP for Videos and Streams etc. UDP is not really reliable, data could get lost.