SAFE Network Dev Update - March 19, 2020

Aye. You have understood well. That essentially implements a chunk of your excellent network starter scripts :+1:

And then ‘cargo bench’ will run the (likely to fail at some point) benchmarks thus far.


Looks like I didn’t understand that well…
I cloned
built it with cargo build --release
copied the target/release/safe to ~/safe/vault
I grabbed and unzipped it beside the new safe executable, but …

willie@gagarin:~/.safe/vault$ ./safe vault run-baby-fleming -t
error: Found argument 'vault' which wasn't expected, or isn't valid in this context


For more information try --help
1 Like

Not quite sure what you’re up to but hasn’t been updated since October by the look of it.


This much is true.
OTOH was updated a couple of days ago. I pasted in the wrong link above - sorry

1 Like

Perhaps you forgot to actually checkout that branch @Southside? after you cloned it you need to git checkout MoreE2E


yep… its getting late - was up early and went for a walk on the hill for the first time in many many months and I’m knackered.

I’ll try again checking out the correct branch — duh


You’re not the first person to make this mistake :innocent:


Just to confirm, when building from MoreE2E, I should see safe-cli v0.9.0, NOT v0.10.0?? Confused.

....... Compiling safe-cli v0.9.0 (/home/willie/projects/maidsafe/joshuef/safe-api/safe-cli)
    Finished release [optimized] target(s) in 10m 25s
willie@gagarin:~/projects/maidsafe/joshuef/safe-api$ cp ~/projects/maidsafe/joshuef/safe-api/target/release/safe ~/.safe/vault/
willie@gagarin:~/projects/maidsafe/joshuef/safe-api$ cd ~/.safe/vault/
willie@gagarin:~/.safe/vault$ ~/.safe/cli/safe vault run-baby-fleming -t
error: Found argument '-t' which wasn't expected, or isn't valid in this context

    safe vault run-baby-fleming [FLAGS] [OPTIONS]

For more information try --help

willie@gagarin:~/.safe/vault$ ./safe -V
safe-cli 0.9.0


It seems v0.9.0 is right:


So its not liking the -t flag then. I wonder where I messed up this time…

1 Like

In other news, a 1Gb file get put to the network in 3min 37secs. We may be on the way to sketching out the first versions of SAFEtube :slight_smile:

willie@gagarin:~/.safe/vault$ dd if=/dev/urandom of=/tmp/rand.dat bs=1M count=1000
1000+0 records in
1000+0 records out
1048576000 bytes (1.0 GB, 1000 MiB) copied, 10.8343 s, 96.8 MB/s
willie@gagarin:~/.safe/vault$ time safe files put /tmp/rand.dat 
FilesContainer created at: "safe://hnyynyicsu7sdniizgfqdzdz3zhw6js3akn4feoupesxsc5ath99gbysmgbnc"
+  /tmp/rand.dat  safe://hbkyyods54j4p7jjfotgew51hkz7u3er7tkkqertwtd6txfpnyigcudu3w 

real	3m37.243s
user	2m50.812s
sys	0m34.127s

The following should do it, note that AFAIK you can use the vault recently released, so just install latest vault with safe vault install, then:

  • git clone josh-api
  • cd josh-api
  • git checkout MoreE2E
  • cargo run --release -- vault run-baby-fleming -t

With the rapidly growing censorship, this can’t come soon enough.


Perhaps should be moved to the Coronavirus mega thread but this is what US censorship is doing

So that’s a rate of 38 Mbps which is pretty good I reckon. It’ll decrease when network latency, network bandwidth, and parsec overheads are introduced and increase when parallel operations are introduced. This seems like it will easily match consumer expectations of the ‘old’ internet. Will be interesting to see how it continues to change. Thanks for the stats @Southside.


Thank you. Definate progress getting made

I got this and will run it again with a backtrace in the morning

. …

Running target/release/deps/safe-5738596b78d37099

running 0 tests

test result: ok. 0 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out

     Running target/release/deps/benches-7beaadd06001e376
Gnuplot not found, using plotters backend
Benchmarking cli put random tiny file
Benchmarking cli put random tiny file: Warming up for 3.0000 s

Warning: Unable to complete 40 samples in 5.0s. You may wish to increase target time to 648.7s or reduce sample count to 10.
Benchmarking cli put random tiny file: Collecting 40 samples in estimated 648.68 s (820 iterations)
[2020-03-20T00:57:43Z ERROR safe] safe-cli error: [Error] NetDataError - Failed to PUT Sequenced Append Only Data: Error(CoreError(Forbidden operation requested - CoreError::OperationForbidden))
thread 'main' panicked at 'called `Result::unwrap()` on an `Err` value: Custom { kind: Other, error: "command [\"safe\", \"files\", \"put\", \"test_file_random_content.txt\"] exited with code 1" }', safe-cli/benches/
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace

error: bench failed

Time for bed </zebedee> <— probably only @happybeing will get that one :slight_smile:



[Now discourse insists on sentences]


I know where this will come in handy! :smiley:

So possibly another community P2P connection test! This will be exciting to see how much of an improvement quic-p2p is over crust.

Once we have multi-sig I bet some pretty complex and next level stuff could come about. Smart contracts and escrow services anyone? Did the CRDT expert hire work still start on March 8th? Would be cool to get updates on CRDT progress too unless other things have taken priority in which case I understand. The goal posts shift from time to time.

There is so so much to look forward to (definitely looking forward to the functionality Labels will provide, to name one) and the progress and effort are second to none. Great job to all @maidsafe. We thank you.


Excellent. That’s the known issue we’ve been seeing as well there :+1: So you’re definitely not doing anything wrong!


If BLSDKG is a more efficient way to do consensus, why bother with PARSEC at all?