3. HOSTING

HOSTING

  • A

    Ok fornax,thanks. I'll just keep plugging at it till I can figure it out.

    Thanks much.

    0
  • admins

    @aj are you on a static ip address or a dynamic one?

    0
  • A

    I believe it's dynamic Taek.

    0
  • I
    Global Moderator

    You want your host IP to be static. Or, announce your host with a hostname and use DynDNS.

    Problem is, when a file contract is made the renter remembers your host based on IP alone. So, when your IP changes the renter can no longer connect to you to confirm the pieces stored on your host are still there. So, the renter assumes the pieces are lost and you dont get paid and renter has to re-upload that piece to a new host (which could be you again).

    Also, you want to make sure your host has high uptime.

    0
  • admins

    I realized there's a pretty trivial way that we'll be able to support dynamic IP addresses. We'll just use a peer network the same way that the Gateway works. I don't know why I didn't see that as a possibility before, but now I feel pretty silly. Since we've already got all of that code in place for the gateway, I really don't see it being a problem to implement for hosts.

    You will still need to forward your ports, there's no efficient way around that. But, the tools for automatically forwarding ports have improved significantly.

    0
  • A

    Question: I now click announce and I am getting this message that says, "transaction set needs more miner fees to be accepted. Does this mean that my hosting is working and what must I now, do to have it accepted?

    0
  • L

    @Taek if you mean that you will just announce yourself to the network with a "My new IP is now 1.2.3.4" message, remember that could lend itself to DoS attack if someone spoofs being someone else, unless you identify yourself with some keys, too. It also may require repeatedly announcing your IP changes, because renters may not be online to see your "IP change announcement" the first time. So perhaps it would require having an announcement that says "I'm the guy who used to be known by the following IPs: a, b, c, d, e... and here's the cryptographic stuff to prove I'm not lying", and repeating that announcement periodically.

    0
  • A

    Umm no, I'm saying this is the message i got when I announced. This message came up "transaction set needs more miner fees to be accepted." I'm asking if this means that the hosting is working? I'm also asking in response to that message what should I do?

    0
  • L

    @aj, I don't know what that message means; I was answering Taek, not you...

    0
  • admins

    @LjL, we will of course be adding keys if we start allowing hosts to change their IP addresses. We should have added keys a while ago, they are useful for other reasons as well.

    @aj: damn. The transaction pool only has so much space for free transactions, it looks like it's currently full of file contracts. If you try again in a few hours you shouldn't have any problems. Looks like we're hitting scalability issues earlier than expected, people are uploading more small files than we anticipated. We're working on the scalability upgrades now, they should be ready in a few weeks.

    In the mean time we'll probably release another version or another set of binaries that limits the total number of files in the renter to 100.

    0
  • A

    @Taek So ok does that also mean my hosting is working?

    0
  • L

    @Taek, to be honest though, I think in the long run, a DHT would be better for this. Repeatedly announcing IP changes, which I think would be necessary, might end up flooding the network quite a bit, don't you think? I don't know if you could use something pre-packaged and specifically tailored to store changing IPs like https://blog.savoirfairelinux.com/en/2015/ring-opendht-a-distributed-hash-table/ perhaps (it's not in Go though).

    0
  • I
    Global Moderator

    @Taek said:

    In the mean time we'll probably release another version or another set of binaries that limits the total number of files in the renter to 100.

    Is this a joke? :anguished: Seriously, if scalability is already an issue it should be dealt with, not avoided with temporary hacks. Truth to be told, a cap of 100 files basically renders Sia useless. I realize there is a problem, but you have also mentioned solutions in the past. Is it too late for priorities to change with regards to bundling file-contracts etc?

    And, what if some power users decide to remove the cap in the source, compile siad themselves, and upload thousands of files anyway? In fact, it appears, it would take only one nefarious uploader to cripple the network at present. More the reason to deal with the problem head on!

    1
  • A

    @in-cred-u-lous

    Indeed Cred I agree :) Deal with smiles

    0
  • admins

    @in-cred-u-lous I'd rather release something that acknowledges the actual limits of Sia than something that's going to have a user uploading >100 files and run into a bunch of unexpected problems. Obviously it's a fix until the scalability solutions are in place. If we could get the scalability stuff finished in 1 day we would release it but there's a lot of code that needs to be written and tested to make that happen. We ARE dealing with the problem head-on.

    Further, it's not the network that's being crippled by all of the files, it's your local machine. siad starts to struggle at 100 files because the process that the uploader uses to scan and upload files is intolerant of large file volumes. A rogue uploader isn't the problem, it's your local state.

    0
Log in to reply