Just wondering how much you end up paying for bandwidth? Aws bandwidth pricing is insane, like $0.12 per GB so quite a strong disincentive for farming in cloud since gets are free
1 Like
It’s an incentive, and getting people running multiple nodes may not be the best approach. Wouldn’t it be better to have many more people running one or two nodes who don’t care so much about earnings as other things?
I’m not saying we should get in the way of people wanting to earn, but that earnings levels don’t necessarily need to satisfy commercial minds in order to be an incentive to others. Earnings, or the possibility can also be an incentive, for people who just want to take part, do good, or see it like buying a weekly lottery ticket.
The cost of running a node or three is so low that for such people it could be sufficiently attractive even for the possibility of some income in future, so let’s not ignore that by focussing only on commercial noderunners.
Large numbers of people running nodes who are not sensitive to price are useful because they can provide a baseload of storage that remains steady regardless of price. It also keeps the cost of storage low encouraging use and supporting growth, which is vital.
Those are reasons to prioritise and encourage that kind of participation. They also happen to be particularly well aligned with the fundamentals. 
1 Like
While this is true moneywise, it may not hold nuisancewise. Sure, starting a node and letting it run, but to keep it up after first reboot, system update, whatever… I don’t think so.
1 Like
Sure, using the CLI etc, but the point is that this is desirable, so making it a no-brainer is both possible and highly desirable.
2 Likes
Actually for the network health we want people to run as many nodes as they are not only comfortable with but also that run smoothly on their PC and internet connection. Suggesting people should limit themselves and not having the straight forward methods is not the right thinking in my opinion.
Better everyone who can run 10 nodes instead of limiting themselves to 2 or 1 do so
And the baseload is serviced better by more nodes on more PCs, assuming of course the machines/internet connection is fine. There will always be those who do not care as much about earnings, but we want them to also run as many nodes as possible since that improves your idea on baseload. Even if they care less about earnings it is still better there is a smooth path to use their earnings.
So I disagree, we should attempt to have a smooth path to use earnings, especially since it is simple to do as @joshuef suggests. If it was complex and jumping through hoops to do it then yes your suggestions would make more sense. But then it also raises questions over how difficult it would be to use earnings even with one node per person. Thankfully though that is not the case
1 Like
That’s not what I said. You are disagreeing with something you’ve assumed or made up.
At a bare minimum it should be simple to access your node rewards if you run 1 node only.
Run a node, earn rewards to put to the network, just that basic functionality is required.
2 Likes
Agreed. My point was about focusing on large noderunners at the expense of others.
Both contribute and are important. I commented because I don’t want us to forget the benefits of many small noderunners by focusing only on those with a more commercial mindset.
Running one or more nodes should be as simple as installing an app and opening it when you want to see how much you’ve got to spend.
I remember in the past, the idea was you would install the Safe App to use the network, and within that there would be the option to run a node as well. Just a checkbox.
There’s no sense were still going to get that but I do hope so.
People who want to run nodes commercially need far less help than ordinary folk. Ideally we find ways to on-board anyone who arrives wanting to browse the Autonomi web, or make use of its storage, so we should keep them in mind too. Right now I want to find ways to build those no-brainer apps. At least until we can see we won’t need to because Autonomi or partners have it covered.
7 Likes
Look at what I quoted. You are saying its not the best approach and to have people running one or two. Many more people is not a qualifier as either approach will accommodate many more people. People run what they can/want anyhow.
So you may not have meant to say that, but it is what results from that statement of yours.
Yep, and is what i was saying.
Why would it be, why would you get that idea? Noed manager makes it easy for running one or many and is the forerunner to the GUI coming in open beta
EDIT: by large node runners do you mean those running a couple of thousand, or those in datacentres running 10’s or 100’s of thousands. In any case I feel we should encourage those at home to run as many as their gear will run and with nodemanager it will be easy as since the node wallet issues of managing them has a easy (implementation) solution.
Also I feel that large node runners will help the network as well and cannot see how its at the expense of anyone else, especially since the network becomes more robust and secure.
2 Likes
Yeah, it’s not good news! It’s not the compute - it’s the Data Transfer that kills the whole concept. These are my figures for the last month as it’s the last day.
Bill:-
Description
Usage Quantity
Amount in USD
Data Transfer
USD 76.53EU (Ireland)
USD 0.00US East (N. Virginia)
USD 76.53Elastic Compute Cloud
USD 26.53Virtual Private Cloud
USD 5.60Simple Storage Service
USD 1.67CloudWatch
USD 0.00Key Management Service
USD 0.00
Total taxUSD 22.07
$26.53 for compute, fair enough!
Bandwidth > Data Transfer detail:-
Bandwidth
USD 76.53
$0.000 per GB - data transfer in per month
842.841 GB USD 0.00
$0.000 per GB - data transfer out under the monthly global free tier
100 GB USD 0.00
$0.000 per GB - regional data transfer under the monthly global free tier
1 GB USD 0.00
$0.010 per GB - regional data transfer - in/out/between EC2 AZs or using elastic IPs or ELB
8.542 GB USD 0.09
$0.090 per GB - first 10 TB / month data transfer out beyond the global free tier
849.354 GB USD 76.44
$76.44 for Bandwith, ouch!
That includes running a T4g.micro with 1 node on it and about a day of running a T4g.large with 100 nodes on it in this Testnet. The CPU wasn’t enough to run that many nodes but it still managed a lot of network bandwidth and did most of the damage with Data Transfer.
A few Testnets ago late last year I ran up a $500 dollar bill by running a few hundred nodes on a couple of Instances for a couple of days. It would have been a couple of hundred dollars but I got stung by leaving them running as the network was being killed off. The resulting churn and replication really hammered the Data Transfer in the last few hours before I spotted it and pulled the plug. So watch out for that!
So I really don’t think running safenodes in AWS will ever be economically sensible. Sure, a couple for testing or demo purposes if you like but it’s always going to be the most expensive way imaginable of running nodes.
For the next month I’ll only run the single Instance with the single node to get clean stats on Data Transfer and cost.
9 Likes
At least that sounds positive for decentralisation.
The storage costs would need to rise to a sustainable amount either way. The question would then be whether it is low enough for folks to pay it.
4 Likes
I don’t mean this as an attack to you or other Antesters or that I personally have any clues about economics, I don’t.
But what I like most about the SAFE economi, is that it’s directly speaking to you as an individual.
I with my limited budget, would never pay a $500 dollar bill to run nodes, would rather buy $500 MAID and I don’t mean this to discourage anyone, because you’ve given an valuable info about the costs and operating environment of a node. Looks like for future testnets, you’ve informed Antesters to have at least fair use or unlimited bandwidth/data transfer.
Costs of running a node is having a simultaneous fist fight with buying MAID or whatever is free.
1 Like