This topic is intended to capture Subnet Management activities over time for the 3hhby subnet, providing a place to ask questions and make observations about the management of this subnet.
At the time of creating this topic the current subnet configuration is as follows:
The removed node is replaced with a node based in India. This certainly seems positive for decentralisation (many existing nodes are clustered in central Europe). I’ve verified that this node is currently unassigned.
DFINITY will submit an NNS proposal today to reduce the notarization delay on the subnet, 3hhby, similar to what has happened on other subnets in recent weeks (you can find all details in this forum thread).
Voted to adopt proposal 134177, as the reasoning is sound and the description matches the payload. This proposal replaces 2 healthy nodes, both of which appear as “Active” on the IC dashboard. The proposed change improves decentralisation with respect to data centre owner and country and brings the target topology parameters to within the requirements.
TLDR: Another great proposal, I’m planning to adopt. This brings the subnet inline with the IC Target Topology, by reducing the max number of nodes per country to 2, and the max number of nodes per operator from 2 to 1 (see ‘Decentralisation Stats’ below for more detail).
Note that decentralisation in terms of max number of nodes per continent is negatively effected, but continents are not part of the formal IC Target Topology.
Motivation:
replacing node va53e-afslx-vabwe-whjns-r66hd-coh34-aeb7w-omrcv-3so2u-esow7-aae to optimize network topology
replacing node aicg2-docau-ham5w-5yl6j-k5jj5-tc5yu-eicbx-2plu3-ta6ey-ixhun-xqe to optimize network topology
2 removed node in the US and Japan, replaced with nodes in Lithuania and Latvia.
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
242.077 km
7665.692 km
16759.085 km
PROPOSED
242.077 km
6554.725 km (-14.5%)
16759.085 km
This proposal slightly reduces decentralisation, considered purely in terms of geographic distance (and therefore there’s a slight theoretical reduction in localised disaster resilience).
Subnet characteristic counts →
Continents
Countries
Data Centers
Owners
Node Providers
Node Operator
EXISTING
4
10
13
12
13
13
PROPOSED
4
11 (+9.1%)
13
13 (+7.7%)
13
13
This proposal slightly improves decentralisation in terms of jurisdiction diversity.
Largest number of nodes with the same characteristic (e.g. continent, country, data center, etc.) →
The above subnet information is illustrated below, followed by a node reference table:
Map Description
Red marker represents a removed node (transparent center for overlap visibility)
Green marker represents an added node
Blue marker represents an unchanged node
Highlighted patches represent the country the above nodes sit within (red if the country is removed, green if added, otherwise grey)
Light grey markers with yellow borders are examples of unassigned nodes that would be viable candidates for joining the subnet according to formal decentralisation coefficients (so this proposal can be viewed in the context of alternative solutions that are not being used)
Known Neurons to follow if you're too busy to keep on top of things like this
If you found this analysis helpful and would like to follow the vote of the LORIMER known neuron in the future, consider configuring LORIMER as a followee for the Subnet Management topic.
Another good neuron to follow is Synapse (follows the LORIMER and CodeGov known neurons for Subnet Management, and is a generally well informed known neuron to follow on numerous other topics)
Voted to adopt proposal 134177. The proposal replaces two nodes from subnet 3hhby:
Removed Nodes: va53e, aicg2.
Added Nodes: lsew2 and lmfy6.
The proposal was verified using the DRE tool to verify the metrics stated. All nodes replaced are healthy but this replacements improve the network topology on the data_center_owner and country metrics.
