Please Read: Digital Ocean Maintenance Issue


#64

Hello,

I now also get this error with the web-hosting-manager v0.4.4.
I didn’t get it the last time I tried, but that was probably before I made a WebID with the PoC WebID manager app.
So I guess that the WebID causes the error and I need a newer verstion of the Web-hosting-manager?


#65

@draw, you should be fine with this WHM, and the upcoming v0.5.0


#66

This WHM works indeed, thanks!


#67

Just going to reference my dev forum post so it can get attention:

Setting up a digital ocean SAFE network for MaidSafe Asia, any assistance or input is greatly appreciated :+1:


#68

I think there is a bug in safe vault code when several nodes disappear from a section at the same time.

I have created a small test network with min section size = 4 in routing config file. My network has normally 4 nodes which means that all data chunks are duplicated 4 times with one copy in each vault. I have developed a utility to display the number of immutable data chunks and the number of mutable data chunks in each vault. And I observe that these 2 numbers are the always the same in all the vaults.

This kind of setup is useful to observe the number of chunks created by a command: for example this is the way I found this issue.

At one time I deleted 2 vaults by accident in a short interval (I didn’t notice the delay between them). No data was lost because the 2 remaining vaults had still the same values for these numbers. Then I relaunched 2 vaults (one by one, with an enough delay between them) but the 2 new vaults display lower values for these numbers, meaning that some data is not stored in these vaults.

This means that some chunks are duplicated less than 4 times which is not a normal state. This fundamental invariant is not respected, which can be the source of ulterior loss of data.

I think this problem is possibly the root cause of the bad fate of the first alpha 2 network and other past networks. I was considering launching a community network (and this test network was in preparation of it) but the discovery of this problem is blocking for that.

Could someone at @maidsafe analyze this problem?


#69

This could be you losing quorum. So if you had a group set at 4 then you need 3 for quorum. So new nodes my not believe the data, usually that would mean a stalled forever section (well in alpha2). I hope this helps, but let me know if not.


#70

Thanks for your explanations. I understand now what I observe when I try to reproduce the problem with simultaneous deletion of 2 vaults : the 2 numbers I mentioned remain at 0 which is a symptom of the state you just described.

In my initial experiment these numbers weren’t 0. But as I said, I didn’t pay attention to the exact timings and probably the first of the new vaults had time to receive some chunks before the last one died.

Edit: To be clear: what I observed was normal and there is nothing to worry about.