User run network based on test 12b binaries


#321

no worries i fixed it also feel free to send me a safe mail im on the 2017 test network and the email id is the same as my forum user name here is a safe test site i just made to
safe://testsite.lostfile/


#322

Thanks for putting it up everyone! I want to join too, but too slow from home so I think I’ll have a look at that vultr @davidpbrown was talking about. Looks better than AWS, cause they don’t need a credit card afaik. Lets see if I can get it to run.

It’s a shame that we need servers again to run it… @Viv can’t we reduce the bandwidth requirements at least a little bit to 4 MB or something? Only a few people can run it like it is now…


#323

Always a good thing - I’m just putting the AWS bill on the company debit card cos its “research”.
No way is it going on my personal card.

@rand_om Hope you can get set up on Vultr cos the more the better.
Hopefully we’ll be pulling alll this down tomorrow night anyway cos TeamTroon will have given us shiny new toys to play with.


#324

We certainly could, however we already see issues not relating to BW that the team is currently addressing without further introducing the load balancing of low/med powered nodes.

I can certainly understand the urge to reduce/remove that requirement all together and trust me, we do too :slight_smile: . However in the current phase the intention is to remove the variable of BW being a limitation out and get the rest of the functional components stable, so that we can then get to the next phase of seeing how nodes can be utilised for specialised operations based on what BW they can provide the system(certainly not relying on renting out data center VMs), so kinda baby steps in that direction. Sorry its probably not the response you hoped for and would certainly say don’t feel like you’re missing out by any means. This is merely a part of the system thats being tested right now.


#325

Would it be possible for the network to determine the maximum amount of nodes that can be run based on BW/resources in the future? Or will it stay at 1.


#326

I certainly hope so :slight_smile: having more nodes in the network plays a big part into security but having one person control a majority brings in its own set of issues as well(dont just mean LAN, just general ownership). Would also wanna answer why users might even want to run more vaults as in would that yield them more safecoin if they do that or affect the potential of a single node to earn more by spreading the resources across more. General questions aside though you’d kinda want the network resource checks to be dynamic than some fixed up LAN restriction / … which wouldn’t take much effort to go around.

BW resource checks is only one part. The resource proof crate itself(not used in test-12b yet) currently would check for BW and CPU, we just dont mention CPU often as that doesnt become the bottleneck as quickly as BW currently. Also all these checks right now are merely “start-up” checks, ideally you’d want the network to monitor itself in real-time and not just at spike moments and dynamically adjust thresholds for entry/eject according to roles that are required.


#328

Vultr needs creditcard to link your account. I’ve tried last week to get the 50$ free trial but it didn’t recognized my card.


#329

I see, so it’s all part of a greater plan! Actually it’s a response that makes sense, so now I know that I’m helping merely by not running my sloth vault :smiley: :+1:


#330

Impossible to Bootstrap (Yesterday I could…). I try deleting IPs in config but none work,
Maybe the Mio Bug with Windows?

ERROR 17:14:57.750556400 [crust::main::bootstrap mod.rs:
: (FailedExternalReachability) Bootstrapee node could no
o us.
INFO 17:14:57.750556400 [routing::states::bootstrapping
otstrapping(159da9…) Failed to bootstrap. Terminating.


#331

Does anyone has a working list for crust.config?? See if I can join.


#332

This should let you in :

{
“hard_coded_contacts”: [
“35.167.139.205:5483”,
“108.61.165.170:5483”,
“52.65.136.52:5483”,
“206.116.50.52:5483”,
“99.199.170.208:5483”,
“31.151.192.2:5483”,
“86.184.57.178:5483”,
“13.80.119.160:5483”,
“85.93.19.51:5483”,
“35.157.162.33:5483”,
“185.16.37.149:5483”,
“35.156.220.253:5483”
],
“bootstrap_whitelisted_ips”: [],
“tcp_acceptor_port”: 5483,
“service_discovery_port”: null,
“bootstrap_cache_name”: null,
“network_name”: “community_network_feb_2017”
}


#333

routing table 21, and another candidate passing the test…

will we see a section split ?

EDIT 23 , still no splitting


#334

I’m in, the sector split must be close.


#335

I guess our nodes are not evenly balanced, then.
How do we balance our nodes? #ProblemsWeNeverHadToDealWithBefore


#336

Tickly close…

I’ll throw another AWS instance on the fire.


#337

I booted some vaults, hope sector split goes well…


#338

Node(32b111…(0)) Section split for Prefix() completed. Prefixes: {Prefix(0), Prefix(1)}

it seems to be like just the usual routine for this vault :slight_smile:


#339

O 22:05:59.500057423 [routing::states::node node.rs:2151] Node(9709dd..(1)) Section split for Prefix() completed. Prefixes: {Prefix(0), Prefix(1)}

Yaaay - we have a split!

EDIT: Beat me to it


#340

Its random. So you either need more nodes or to reboot them until the distribution is more spread. Really you need more nodes.


#341