NatNet [May 26 Testnet 2023] [Offline]

[abittner]

ss is your friend

ss - another utility to investigate sockets

[JPL]

@Vort

Which will give 10-20 times less entries.

Using sort as you suggest cuts it down to 31 for me. Seems low.

Edit:

Extracting them all and deduping I get 46 unique IDs

Summary

peer_id=12D3KooW9vaN3N1khU58jcbkLGtcvE8Giu3QSLWdBmdQjR6Js4eh
peer_id=12D3KooWA3HaETuj7daLyKk87WfdLNBhX7mci91ocS8pfNAkV8qW
peer_id=12D3KooWA3iCfANYfqdijMznXdLXEtT4LrktJMj8goRePdyMWSws
peer_id=12D3KooWAArAejLHdt8MNxzPTeasP2MRYQLB4DGPtNFWRbmhbnvb
peer_id=12D3KooWB5mzahivis9wnwEnuMnehsBpQF4gzE8BDJ8NZFeHPSM9
peer_id=12D3KooWBKmpRtnvn2DnFLsB8zaqe5MkYsuyFfCeYo8qxCoyBp7v
peer_id=12D3KooWCCPGiEdyM5N6dMijXE9i42Kbq7ZNCfHkDWLeUckEpveJ
peer_id=12D3KooWCMbPzVHJ4VpbvswE8sVKRfsusZiDyfFsRyPDdEyCP6z1
peer_id=12D3KooWCv2tmdf36tBhtnnWPvz6LuDoA2uz4QVArjfttVDfG9Yr
peer_id=12D3KooWDfioXgZNcfd92skkRyUh2fAXKpXf43ipGbGSSC3wKm1E
peer_id=12D3KooWDr4eh5RTZX7t9X3Xm2SwXpe9BA9Qbp4b13AiGJtrEhC2
peer_id=12D3KooWES2dF8Y2nm5THzsB8PsxuK9B3VBcyuS4TKVbrtrhtU9U
peer_id=12D3KooWF6kbF1uFakMZ2ve1kpLx8EpqRTJiURcaygKTngQ8V5bk
peer_id=12D3KooWFDsM23hdr4ejG4R13fPvX6JtCEgiiveXXFf16pgA5Ty6
peer_id=12D3KooWFLvPUtXD7v6rmiGSyMJdt3w4eM466AwJRe3nnUeCY4g4
peer_id=12D3KooWFPnkm5MpBxPLy1PgthPZNU3GfhXoxEUdcrbUugecRcoP
peer_id=12D3KooWFTxXqvYj5UhpZgNZSr9VyuLaJAtNGVpmnxvhsWvQFhqi
peer_id=12D3KooWGfCyys3X7f7NSc28239oFbsaKqSFFvRVLkuiXsCpBpCF
peer_id=12D3KooWGRmfEFqZNNrPJVLa97CsDaVKeFedvnFfP45UxRpqc31n
peer_id=12D3KooWJk7Hg2uZoF6xaVpms3Q6RJmqHLzmycNUoztGadh72rhP
peer_id=12D3KooWJL1TTPS6GcyPutFdprCU7rcDRvntXf73ESQFmo9eLhc2
peer_id=12D3KooWJsX74Kx6RBGzEFtjjsFZ66D32euVZy4zbhtaEpeXh2ay
peer_id=12D3KooWK51tFcQAGbrhuFh28wRtJshorsDwycs2DmZjrt7FXACg
peer_id=12D3KooWKZQrREboywgL92G95Zxj9EhjbGNYFqnJGdjn6ttRFXWw
peer_id=12D3KooWLcThH1ZcrcjBLe9bvZPiowxNRcpXS8bk2zzJAeeaYrV3
peer_id=12D3KooWLe5T9qdGjP5pc1Gwg5LDoX6f7kvDxcAcjfZai3q9KyhD
peer_id=12D3KooWLhFnwwMnZfDRxC4HA71qnrsQTEwvBryBpo6P3TxNyMS4
peer_id=12D3KooWLQtKX23WepUn77JBsJqevcoA4X3qPmfxuQNTKVEAru9N
peer_id=12D3KooWLt3FxTeoQZGFAMWBBZN5XBtv362nUevTXSGwzL7t17x9
peer_id=12D3KooWMjmjK1X9ZqHJKKdb7bThgsNVyDXcqYxofhMUcY45dHi7
peer_id=12D3KooWMtMTB8hhdBBkw5UQP1nVgZbcrF5g9t8UfToSwqoiPBcu
peer_id=12D3KooWN7AJe7wxVckZ6SF3ybYXVgetQ9hkYWHCHLokpSRC31W2
peer_id=12D3KooWNahaJmDLtZasmQqPB4jhotMhZ47iFGFgdvV7wNuZdmak
peer_id=12D3KooWNorWTvVHWh7q7SLNqiPsXF6DPg8i6g67heNyrokaQYtU
peer_id=12D3KooWNWaEZZuwxxSoXA8femh9ShianvKXNAQvZhvNVmpCnoU8
peer_id=12D3KooWP9zQDmK34VR9wVAuepE7H4XXdonEQ4iF8VFkUMN485pj
peer_id=12D3KooWPgALRGTEznXYsw2soNn33wZd7VkzW4xzz68Q4b157wbp
peer_id=12D3KooWPmLqXR87s5G21ddUwyPfaEmfLgkwg3D5L5SLyTZSC9bm
peer_id=12D3KooWPuLcWkz2Uc5HKiuCapPzDMSSe7vfykqfLgALzKWZ9JEd
peer_id=12D3KooWPyUPc1DZKkrN5MnXeEUAxLg5v3DfKajZnrz5gHhUor8g
peer_id=12D3KooWQFdS88YrdDJ2QVS6oepCtLLdLCgScF7EJCsqR8Es1UWo
peer_id=12D3KooWQvyuDKvca4qxQf9ncheY1S7xYewbfdAstap6PZpS4xqX
peer_id=12D3KooWRNtxc4z3dfd7poZeGjLyrxi4G22H1XBVpMP6v8GohSVx
peer_id=12D3KooWSdk2DCNYiX8sy6R9HEZAvJxrbg2Zov6RprvqtewhpuDc
peer_id=12D3KooWSxqeZktmWyrTNzy9jF8jJJ6Bg6kFc6KebbrkwdcUggS6
peer_id=12D3KooWT3Ne7cGAtbcKe9kYoPJ5PGjNCBxtMKhfvZUSEfjN3G1J

[storage_guy]

@Vort

Your results are wrong because you have mistake in your command.
uniq removes only adjacent duplicates.
To remove all duplicates, you need to sort lines first:
grep 'adding addresses to routing table peer_id' safenode.log.20230530T025714 | awk {'print $10'} | sort | uniq | wc -l

Doh! Thanks for that! Yes, I see what you mean having looked properly at the man page for ‘uniq’.

I’ll edit the original post for the sake of clarity.

**ubuntu@ip-172-30-3-146**:**~**$ cat test

1

2

2

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

1

2

3

4

**ubuntu@ip-172-30-3-146**:**~**$ uniq test

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

**ubuntu@ip-172-30-3-146**:**~**$ sort test | uniq

1

2

3

4

[neo]

@Vort

If answer is “yes”, then there is no need to even try connecting 10.*.*.* - addresses from reserved ranges can be filtered out without making connection attempts.

I was thinking about this earlier but the final goal for SAFE though is for nodes to work behind NATs. It will be the case that some of the nodes behind one NAT will be communicating with another node behind the same NAT.

[storage_guy]

I think they will always have to connect out to other nodes via their connection to the internet even if they could in theory have a route to nodes running on the same network. They are supposed to all be equal and routable via the internet.

[Josh]

I was today years old when I learned that the logs automatically compress, while this is obvs not a technological breakthrough, I have never had a node run long enough for it to happen.
New ground

It is the little incentives in life , kind of bummed that there is no longer a goal to reach such as elder.

[Josh]

What is happening here, says successfully stored.

 josh@pc1:~$ safe files upload ~/upload/safe.html
Removed old logs from directory: "/tmp/safe-client"
Starting logging to directory: "/tmp/safe-client"
Instantiating a SAFE client...
Current build's git commit hash: ---- No git commit hash found ----
Client successfully connected to the Network.
Storing file "safe.html" of 1142 bytes..
Successfully stored file "safe.html" to 40f22afbd45228ad2102c9534ca26db218e554b88e97579bec2a22e64aab034c
Writing 57 bytes to "/home/josh/.safe/client/uploaded_files/file_names_2023-05-31_14-28-43"

josh@pc1:~$ safe --peer=/ip4/206.189.29.202/tcp/38379/p2p/12D3KooWN7AJe7wxVckZ6SF3ybYXVgetQ9hkYWHCHLokpSRC31W2 files download -- safe.html 40f22afbd45228ad2102c9534ca26db218e554b88e97579bec2a22e64aab034c
Removed old logs from directory: "/tmp/safe-client"
Starting logging to directory: "/tmp/safe-client"
Instantiating a SAFE client...
Current build's git commit hash: ---- No git commit hash found ----
Client successfully connected to the Network.
Downloading file "safe.html" with address 40f22afbd45228ad2102c9534ca26db218e554b88e97579bec2a22e64aab034c
Did not get file "safe.html" from the network! Network Error Record was not found locally.

[Southside]

I saw similar a day or two back. Are you absolutely certain you are connected to the network?
I have not been as involved the past few days as I should have been and have not given the safenode_rpc_client the thorough poking that it needs.
Is this even enabled on Natnet? If so, try to get netinfo on your own client.

I know Natnet is our longest-running recent testnet but IMHO it has fulfilled its original goal and is now frankly somewhat of a curiosity. I doubt we can say too much about the reliability and resilience given that there is limited scope for upload/download. What more is there to learn from this specific set of binaries? Would we not be more profitably employed building the latest and greatest from Github and seeing what can be learned from that both locally and on cloud instances?

This has been another speculative post from Southside and I await correction from others and acclamation from youse all for my 4 in a row

[joshuef]

Awesome digging.

If some specific logs are ever helpful, we’re open to adding anything useful! (and PRs are very welcome )

---

@josh targetted replication was not in this build I think. So could be data was lost here. This is something that should be improved on with a nextnet.

@Southside

I know Natnet is our longest-running recent testnet but IMHO it has fulfilled its original goal and is now frankly somewhat of a curiosity

Yup, I’ll be bringing this down today I think.

[Southside]

Yaaay for nextnet!!!

[Vort]

@Josh

I was today years old when I learned that the logs automatically compress, while this is obvs not a technological breakthrough, I have never had a node run long enough for it to happen.

It’s a recent addition.
Old logs were simply deleted several releases ago.

[bzee]

I’ve brought down the network, thanks everyone for participating and making it a success!