Nah that wasnt what I was trying to indicate.
I was meaning this Node
3a879f(the one whose logs we’re viewing) is realising it is not responsible for a chunk/account its currently keeping track of which is what we do not expect cos of a NodeLoss, we’d expect that via NodeAdded as in someone new joined so we realise we’re no longer responsible for this acct/chunk anymore as the new node is closer than us to the concerned location. With NodeLoss, we shouldn’t loose responsibility, but potentially gain more due to the lack of the node that used to be online.
There are a couple things wrong/confusing in that log message tho. First up both MaidManager - log and DataManager - log use a similar log message and maybe if we look at the file log, the module name indicates a difference between the two, but console logs dont show the module name and the message is vague between MM/DM.
More importantly, looking at the code, the variable we’re logging is the
node_name of the peer going offline in both cases rather than the chunk/acct(
name) we realised we’re not responsible for anymore. That probably explains why we’re seeing “spam” of that message when it occurs cos there are probably few acct/chunks but we don’t log that info but just the node_name which is the same in that loop anyways. Also probably what confuses any1 to make that connection to this being about the lost node than about ourselves.