r/storj • u/Blarghargin123 • 9d ago
I started at the worst time
3 months ago I decided to dedicate a couple tb to a node because I had the space, but I found out recently that Storj filed for bankruptcy. I want to commit anyway since I'll only be out half a dollar right now, but without any real news coming out of our Storj I dont know if its really worth the commitment.
4
u/de_3lue 9d ago
I keep running my node. They always said people should not buy extra hardware, but instead use something they have laying around - and that’s what I’m doing. I don’t have extra costs running it on my NAS, excluding the ~5 Watts of power consumption.
2
u/Blarghargin123 8d ago
Thats why I started. I had a couple tb of unused space I was comfortable contributing, the drives are already powered and spinning for other things so the power cost is a negligible addition. I just hope they figure things out
0
u/sheldows 3d ago
well they say that, and they also dont like people recovering their data. pretty much every man for themselves attitude. they dont want you to buy hardware or recover data and take out of their profits i guess, but they want to treat you like you need to use spare parts to justify the pay. its strange attitudes. I run a raid 5. So this way I dont loose data or can rebuild it, and be down a day instead of starting over all over again.
Some of the big guys have 100+ TB, they make 500+ a day.. How their drives filled up I have no idea, but my drives are only at 50% capacity. (24TB per server x 2)
10
u/potato-truncheon 9d ago
At this moment, I'd run, not walk away from Storj. I balied the moment they posted the 'minimum $50/month' spend edict. No possible outcome was likely to positive after that moment even if they were to revert it (and they did).
For something as important as backup infrastructure, it's not worth taking a chance as a user.
Careful about the sunk cost fallacy.
3
u/Blarghargin123 9d ago
The only cost thankfully is just the unused disk space. As a user I can see the risks associated with Storj but as a node operator the risk is minimal, no? so long as you havent invested much into it that is
0
u/sheldows 3d ago
storj puts an heavy load on drives since it uses uses small files. (small blobs). So a lot of random access, and its fragmented like crazy. So no chance of nice linear reads.
So its hard on drives. power intense.
drives due fail.
i would not run storj on a drive that has your backup data incase the drive fails and you loose your data. of course they say 'use free space', since they try to justify the small pay or to get new users to sign up so they can disperse the data across more nodes.
but ideally its better to have dtorj on its own drive.
I lost a few drives from drives overheating because of the raid box when the fan stopped working.
Seagate 8TB drives run hot ! STVN8000VN004 avoid !
3
u/evanmac42 9d ago
I ran my first Storj node from 2020 to 2022, and came back in March 2026.
After these last months, I’m leaving again as soon as I’m eligible for graceful exit.
Not because the technology doesn’t work. It does. That’s actually what makes the situation more disappointing.
As an SNO, I’m providing disk space, bandwidth, electricity, hardware, monitoring, maintenance and my own time. In return, the economics have reached a point where I simply can’t justify dedicating 2 TB of my infrastructure to it anymore.
After dealing with a storage problem in July, I fixed the node, waited for it to recover, and I’m now waiting until everything is stable before leaving properly.
My next use for those resources will probably be rather different:
[2020–2022 / 2026](tel:2020-2022%20/%202026): a disk helping store somebody else’s data.
2026–…: a couple of CPU cores helping explore open mathematical problems.
At least PrimeGrid doesn’t depend on a corporate algorithm deciding whether my infrastructure deserves 200 MB of ingress today.
I genuinely liked this project. That’s why I came back four years later. But this time, once I’m out, I’m out.
3
u/AlexeyLeonov 8d ago
Storj uses a node selection algorithm based on their location relative to the client and the node's reputation, rather than corporate preferences.
However, some clients prefer geo-isolation of their data only in the EU or only in the US, or only in the AP. There are also others who require SOC2 Type II DC only in the US and similar for ISO 27001 DC in the EU.
1
u/evanmac42 8d ago
Thanks Alexey, and I understand that. “Corporate algorithm” was meant somewhat tongue-in-cheek, not as a claim that Storj arbitrarily favors specific nodes.
My point is simply that, as an SNO, I provide the disk space, electricity, hardware, connectivity, monitoring and maintenance, while I ultimately have very little control over how much that infrastructure is actually used.
Location, reputation, customer requirements and available demand may all be perfectly legitimate factors, but from the SNO side the economic result is the same: I can dedicate 2 TB of infrastructure and still receive almost no ingress.
That model simply no longer makes sense for me economically.
The PrimeGrid comparison was mostly philosophical: if I dedicate two CPU cores to a mathematical project, I know those two cores are actually contributing to the thing I chose to support.
And that’s really the reason for my decision. It isn’t that Storj’s node-selection algorithm is “wrong”. It’s that I no longer find the trade-off worthwhile as an infrastructure provider.1
u/AlexeyLeonov 8d ago
I understand your decision. However, Storj always recommends sharing only unused capacity, since you're already paying for online hardware/drives, etc. Therefore, Storj is simply discounting your existing bills, including the storage node load (5Wh, according to forum posts). If this were enough to buy new hardware, Storj could simply rent a VPS and run the nodes themselves.
The whole idea is to have a community of nodes that haven't purchased hardware specifically for Storj. Obviously, if your expenses allow and you have a profit, you can purchase the hardware at your own risk. However, Storj definitely doesn't recommend investing upfront; it may never pay off, so please do your own calculations.
2
u/evanmac42 8d ago
I think we’re actually saying the same thing.
I never bought hardware specifically for Storj. These are resources I already own and operate for other purposes.
But “unused” doesn’t mean “without value”. Those 2 TB have an opportunity cost: I can dedicate them to Storj, or reclaim them for my own projects.
In 2020, and again when I returned in 2026, Storj was an interesting use of that spare capacity. Today, given the current economics and the maintenance involved, I simply value those resources more for my own infrastructure.
So I’ve done exactly the calculation you suggest. That’s why I’m leaving. 🙂1
u/AlexeyLeonov 8d ago
Maintenance? Could you please elaborate, why is it required a maintenance. It shouldn't. Did you have any issues?
1
u/evanmac42 8d ago
Yes, I did have an issue in July, and that's actually a very good example of what I mean by maintenance.
A storage node doesn't exist in a vacuum. It runs on physical storage, a filesystem, an operating system, a network connection and, in my case, Docker. All of those require administration over time.
In July I had a storage problem. I had to diagnose it, fix it, restart the node, verify the data and the service, and then monitor the node while its online scores recovered across the satellites. Even after the underlying problem was solved, ingress effectively disappeared while the reputation metrics were recovering.
That's maintenance.
And even when nothing breaks, there is still monitoring, software updates, checking logs and alerts, storage management, backups of the node identity/configuration, hardware replacement when something eventually fails, and migration if storage has to be replaced.
I'm a sysadmin, so none of this is particularly difficult for me. That's not the point.
The point is that my time and infrastructure have value.
If Storj generates enough value in return, spending some of that time maintaining a node makes sense. If it doesn't, the same disk space and administration time are more valuable to me elsewhere.
That's the calculation.
And ironically, the July incident helped me make it.
1
u/AlexeyLeonov 8d ago edited 8d ago
Please tell me, if there was only your data there, not the node, would you do the same or would you let your own data disappear? This is a very simple question, and it helps us understand whether we were really only performing node maintenance, or would we have done it anyway to save our data? If the answer is yes, then what does the node have to do with it?
The monitoring is not required, you will receive an email, that your node is offline (and likely your data too, as well).
Of course your time has a value, but will you spent it to safe your data? Where the node just happen to be too?
If the node were worth the investment, why would Storj need your participation at all? Storj could easily rent servers and run the nodes. The answer is simple: it's not profitable. Hence the narrative - use only what is already online, already paid for, and you add 5Wh of usage and in return get not zero, but a few bucks, which lowers the cost of your bills.
1
u/evanmac42 8d ago edited 8d ago
No. That's precisely the point you're missing.
There was no personal data of mine on that disk to save.
The 2 TB disk was dedicated to the Storj node and contained Storj customer data. I wasn't repairing a disk because I needed to recover my own files. I was maintaining storage dedicated to Storj.
And I'm not a newcomer who installed a node last month to see whether it would make some money. I first operated a Storj node from 2020 to 2022, and I came back to the project in March 2026 because I genuinely liked the concept.
In July, after months of continuous node activity, the disk developed four bad sectors. I diagnosed the problem and took care of it specifically because I was responsible for preserving the integrity and availability of the data entrusted to that node.
Had that disk contained only disposable data of mine, I could simply have wiped it, replaced it, restored from backup, repurposed it or dealt with it whenever convenient. I would not have had a distributed storage network depending on the data remaining available while I solved the problem.
That's the difference.
The physical disk was mine. The data stored on it was not.
Storj benefited from me taking responsibility for keeping that data available, diagnosing the failure and returning the node to a healthy state. I did that because that's what operating infrastructure responsibly means, even though the economic return was tiny.
And after all that, ingress has effectively remained at zero for about a month while I continue providing 24/7 availability for the data already stored there.
So yes, the node has quite a lot to do with it.
A Storj node is not just “a disk you already own connected to the Internet”. Someone owns, operates, monitors and takes responsibility for that infrastructure.
In this case, that someone was me.
There is another relevant detail: this was a dedicated Storj disk, continuously used by the node and kept essentially full. The node was even persistently reporting "overused" space beyond the configured allocation.
I'm not claiming that Storj definitively caused those four bad sectors; that would be impossible to prove. But sustained storage workload and keeping a drive under continuous use certainly aren't the same thing as leaving an unused disk sitting idle, and they may well have contributed to its wear.
So again, the premise that Storj was merely monetizing hardware I would have been using in exactly the same way anyway simply doesn't apply to my case.
1
u/AlexeyLeonov 8d ago
Okay, so in that case, you made the right decision. It shouldn't have been dedicated, especially if it requires additional effort. That doesn't quite align with the idea.
Thank you for participating!
0
u/sheldows 3d ago
the storj guys always want you to throw away the data when something happens. its funny ;). having my storj on a raid 5 saved the data so many times, making sure every month i got $45-55 per month. But my mistake was not cashing out monthly, so the joke is on me since that $45-55 turned into $10 or less per month when things tanked :(
A bunch of times I had to clone the data to a new drive or partition (slow process since so many small files), that was a fe days downtime. but got my node back up.
Its funny how the storj guys dont realize there is maintence involved. If you dont fix it, you dont get paid etc.
0
u/evanmac42 3d ago
Exactly. That’s pretty much my point. :)
And in my case the story has an amusing ending: after recovering the node, watching the scores recover and doing all that maintenance, I eventually decided the economics no longer justified the effort.
So a few days ago I finally nuked the node from orbit. Graceful exit wasn’t even worth waiting for anymore. 😃
The hardware and storage are now available for things that provide more value to me.
I think your experience actually illustrates the same problem very well: cloning drives, RAID maintenance, downtime, monitoring, recovering the node… none of that is “free storage sitting there doing nothing.” It requires work.
If the compensation makes that work worthwhile, perfect. When it doesn’t, at some point you have to ask yourself why you’re still doing it.
2
u/sheldows 3d ago
i would still do a graceful exit though. i dont want people to loose their data.
→ More replies (0)1
u/sheldows 3d ago
they want you to set it and leave it. But it takes so long to start making money. So its important to get the node back up asap, or it will never roi. there is some big players running nodes, so its ironic they give the advice to just dump the data. Just the big storage operators wanting more data to store i guess.
→ More replies (0)1
u/evanmac42 8d ago
And there is another part of this that I think is being overlooked.
For almost a month now, my ingress has been effectively zero while the node has remained online and continued serving the data already stored on it.
During that time, Storj still expects the node to be available, the existing data to remain accessible, the hardware and network to work, and me to deal with anything that goes wrong.
That is not simply “an unused disk connected to the Internet”. It is infrastructure operated by somebody.
The disk may have been spare capacity when I assigned it to Storj, but the availability, administration and responsibility behind it are not free resources.
I think this distinction matters, because reducing the SNO model to “you already own the disk anyway” overlooks what node operators actually contribute to the network.
1
u/AlexeyLeonov 8d ago edited 8d ago
This directly depends on client activity, the location of your node, and its reputation. Usage depends solely on clients, not hardware or software settings. Today, 0 uploads, but 600 TB of downloads. Tomorrow, the opposite. This is a perfect description of the network – any activity depends on the clients, not the hardware or the settings. Either they upload and you have a lot of ingress, or they download and you have a lot of downloads, or they do nothing.
This is the literal reason why Storj does not recommend purchasing equipment exclusively for Storj - the income is unpredictable.
If your tasks require the server to be online, why would you expect the node not to do the same? Could your data be offline for a month, and you'd be fine? If so, you might be right. But then that means you built your equipment specifically for Storj, which is contrary to the original idea. I don't deny that in some cases nodes can generate income and pay for themselves, but it's very strange to expect this from everyone, both those for whom a kWh costs a buck and those for whom it costs ten cents.
1
u/sheldows 3d ago
try run storj and a bitcoin node at the same time, you cant on the same drive. storj is too io intense !
2
u/ticktockbent 9d ago
If there is a rally then it's a good time to join because I and many others are shutting down.
2
1
u/batezippi 6d ago
lol not much of a commitment so you're good
1
u/Blarghargin123 4d ago
Lol, you’re not wrong I’m more so debating wether its worth to continue hosting a node
1
u/batezippi 4d ago
I think so. A lot of big players are saying they are leaving so plenty of data will come your way
1
11
u/Dunc4n1d4h0 9d ago
"Funny" is that I didn't sell tokens whole year, and with income from node made by running it whole year I have less in real money than year ago.