User run network based on test 12b binaries

Community
21

I can only imagine that there is a slow node you are uploading to, or hicup

Maybe someone who knows more could chime in here

22

All 1 resource proof responses fully sent, but timed out waiting for approval from the network. This could be due to the target section experiencing churn. Terminating node.

Trying to join , it seems we are not enough yet ! I’m waiting for aws access…

23

I did connect to the community network with all the right IPs/ports/networkname etc. I did a test for resource proof even while it succeeded there’s still a problem. here are the last lines of myvault log:

INFO 12:41:11.248979700 [routing::states::node node.rs:2316] Node(917ae8..()) 0/1 resource proof response(s) complete, 16% of data sent. 170/410 seconds remaining.
INFO 12:41:41.249538900 [routing::states::node node.rs:2316] Node(917ae8..()) 0/1 resource proof response(s) complete, 18% of data sent. 140/410 seconds remaining.
INFO 12:42:11.250987900 [routing::states::node node.rs:2316] Node(917ae8..()) 0/1 resource proof response(s) complete, 21% of data sent. 110/410 seconds remaining.
INFO 12:42:41.251089300 [routing::states::node node.rs:2316] Node(917ae8..()) 0/1 resource proof response(s) complete, 21% of data sent. 80/410 seconds remaining.
INFO 12:43:11.252580900 [routing::states::node node.rs:2316] Node(917ae8..()) 0/1 resource proof response(s) complete, 21% of data sent. 50/410 seconds remaining.
INFO 12:43:41.258177500 [routing::states::node node.rs:2316] Node(917ae8..()) 0/1 resource proof response(s) complete, 21% of data sent. 20/410 seconds remaining.
INFO 12:44:01.211202200 [routing::states::node node.rs:2344] Node(917ae8..()) All 1 resource proof responses fully sent, but timed out waiting for approval from the network. This could be due to the target section experiencing churn. Terminating node.
DEBUG 12:44:01.211202200 [routing::state_machine state_machine.rs:267] State::Node(917ae8..()) Terminating state machine

“All 1 resource proof responses fully sent, but timed out waiting for approval from the network. This could be due to the target section experiencing churn. Terminating node”.

EDIT: I’m trying again, but it’s only connected to 2 peers. I guess we need more Vaults to start up the network??

24

@anon40790172 We might need to organise in advance those who will be “seed” nodes and coordinate the startup

3 Likes
25

I remember reading somewhere that “hard coded contacts” are excluded from doing resource proof. That would make sense. So indeed we need 8 hard coded contacts at least to start the network. Maybe make it even 10 or 12.

1 Like
26

As more people get use to using droplets? or aws instances (free tier) we can have a good user run network set up after each test.

4 Likes
27

i just started runing a node on this user test network how do i set it so i can make my own network as well ?

28

i’ll move my vault across to this network next week, happy to have ip listed once its moved as i’ll have it running 24x7 once its setup.

rup

29

hiya,

my crust config file including my vault ip…

will now leave running

{
“hard_coded_contacts”: [
“35.167.139.205:5483”,
“52.65.136.52:5483”,
“138.197.235.128:5483”,
“73.255.195.141:5483”,
“185.16.37.149:5438”
],
“bootstrap_whitelisted_ips”: ,
“tcp_acceptor_port”: 5483,
“service_discovery_port”: null,
“bootstrap_cache_name”: null,
“network_name”: “user_network_12_b”

cheers

rup

30

Updated config including my vault. I think we only need 1 more :smiley:

{
“hard_coded_contacts”: [
“35.167.139.205:5483”,
“52.65.136.52:5483”,
“138.197.235.128:5483”,
“73.255.195.141:5483”,
“108.61.165.170:5483”,
“185.16.37.149:5438”,
“78.46.181.243:5438”
],
“bootstrap_whitelisted_ips”: ,
“tcp_acceptor_port”: 5483,
“service_discovery_port”: null,
“bootstrap_cache_name”: null,
“network_name”: “user_network_12_b”
}

31

{
“hard_coded_contacts”: [
“35.167.139.205:5483”,
“52.65.136.52:5483”,
“138.197.235.128:5483”,
“73.255.195.141:5483”,
“108.61.165.170:5483”,
“185.16.37.149:5438”,
“78.46.181.243:5438”,
“31.151.192.2:5438”
],
“bootstrap_whitelisted_ips”: ,
“tcp_acceptor_port”: 5483,
“service_discovery_port”: null,
“bootstrap_cache_name”: null,
“network_name”: “user_network_12_b”
}

OK we have 8 now.

EDIT: Screwing up the lines here. Just made an edit.

2 Likes
32

Theres a " missing at the end of the hard coded contacts and a “.” before the last ip addresss – that might catch someone out

Sorry for being picky :slight_smile:

1 Like
33

Funny, I make it 9 … :slight_smile:

{
“hard_coded_contacts”: [
“192.168.1.64:5483”,
“35.167.139.205:5483”,
“52.65.136.52:5483”,
“138.197.235.128:5483”,
“73.255.195.141:5483”,
“108.61.165.170:5483”,
“185.16.37.149:5438”,
“78.46.181.243:5438”,
“31.151.192.2:5438” ],

“bootstrap_whitelisted_ips”: ,
“tcp_acceptor_port”: 5483,
“service_discovery_port”: null,
“bootstrap_cache_name”: null,
“network_name”: “test_network_12_b”
}

@anon40790172 I think you’re missing a comma after “78.46.181.243:5438” :wink:

2 Likes
34

@southside beat me to it

1 Like
35

Handy hint - just do a scan down the hard coded addresses - check they all have opening and closing " and that they are all separated with commas - except the last

otherwise you get
iubuntu@ip-172-31-26-108:/maidsafe/safe_vault-v0.13.0-linux-x64$ sudo ./safe_vault
thread ‘main’ panicked at ‘Unable to start crust::Service ConfigFileHandler(JsonParserError(SyntaxError(“invalid syntax”, 8, 6)))’, /media/psf/Home/Dev/Rust/routing/src/state_machine.rs:205
note: Run with RUST_BACKTRACE=1 for a backtrace.
INFO 16:53:49.315146957 [safe_vault safe_vault.rs:95]

:frowning:

1 Like
36

I just did, should be good now. but I’ll update to JPL’s version anyway.

1 Like
37

You have the wrong network name… replace with user_network_12_b

2 Likes
38

I wouldn’t just yet - it’s not working

39

erm, 192.168.1.64 is a local ip

5 Likes
40

Ahhhh, I already wondered. Will wait for an update now :grin:.