This change creates a new independent process, the 'auditor', comparable
to the repairer, gc, and api processes. This will allow auditors to be
scaled independently of the core.
Refs: https://github.com/storj/storj/issues/5251
Change-Id: I8a29eeb0a6e35753dfa0eab5c1246048065d1e91
The Reporter is responsible for processing results from auditing
operations, logging the results, disqualifying nodes that reached
the maximum reverification count, and passing the results on to
the reputation system.
In this commit, we extend the Reporter so that it knows how to process
the results of piecewise reverification audits.
We also change most reporter-related tests so that reverifications
happen as piecewise reverification audits, exercising the new code.
Note that piecewise reverification audits are not yet being done outside
of tests. In a later commit, we will switch from doing segmentwise
reverifications to piecewise reverifications, as part of the
audit-scaling effort.
Refs: https://github.com/storj/storj/issues/5230
Change-Id: I9438164ce1ea4d9a1790d18d0e1046a8eb04d8e9
This is in response to community feedback that our existing reputation
calculation is too likely to disqualify storage nodes unfairly with
extreme swings up and down.
For details and analysis, please see the data_loss_vs_dq_chance_sim.py
tool, the "tuning reputation further.ipynb" Jupyter notebook in the
storj/datascience repository, and the discussion at
https://forum.storj.io/t/tuning-audit-scoring/14084
In brief: changing the lambda and initial-alpha parameters in this way
causes the swings in reputation to be smaller and less likely to put a
node past the disqualification threshold unfairly.
Note: this change will cause a one-time reset of all (non-disqualified)
node reputations, because the new initial alpha value of 1000 is
dramatically different, and the disqualification threshold is going to
be much higher.
Change-Id: Id6dc4ba8fde1be3db4255b72282207bab5491ca3
This has been a cause of some confusion, even though the fields are
labeled as being copies of config values.
Having them be under a field explicitly named "Config" makes this
clearer, plus, allows the values to be passed in simply as a copy
of the Config struct from the satellite, rather than copying the fields
individually (which can be error-prone, particularly as the AuditCount
field in UpdateRequest is apparently not the same thing as the
AuditCount field in reputation.Config).
Refs: https://github.com/storj/storj/issues/4601
Change-Id: I386953347b71068596618616934aa28e3245cdc1
inconsistency
The original design had a flaw which can potentially cause discrepancy
for nodes reputation status between reputations table and nodes table.
In the event of a failure(network issue, db failure, satellite failure, etc.)
happens between update to reputations table and update to nodes table, data
can be out of sync.
This PR tries to fix above issue by passing through node's reputation from
the beginning of an audit/repair(this data is from nodes table) to the next
update in reputation service. If the updated reputation status from the service
is different from the existing node status, the service will try to update nodes
table. In the case of a failure, the service will be able to try update nodes
table again since it can see the discrepancy of the data. This will allow
both tables to be in-sync eventually.
Change-Id: Ic22130b4503a594b7177237b18f7e68305c2f122
