This topic is intended to capture Subnet Management activities over time for the e66qm 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:
DFINITY will submit a proposal to reduce the notarization delay on subnet e66qm, similar to what has happened on other subnets in the recent weeks (you can find all details in this forum thread).
Note that e66qm is currently under high load from bob.fun, so this proposal could help increase the subnet’s throughput. DFINITY has done tests with the lower notarization delays and high load, so this combination should not cause issues.
Thanks for this announcement @Manu. Looks good and I’ve voted to adopt. It’ll be interesting to see the updated metrics once this proposal executes
Maybe to add a bit of context to my post: When I wrote the post, we had observed messages between subnets that were enqueued for multiple hours. Coincidentally, those messages were all delivered while we were still analyzing the situation (without us doing anything actively). The delays seem to be related to the large number of DTS executions outstanding on the e66qm subnet, caused by the large number of bob miners that all want to run heavy computation. We will analyze this further and provide a more detailed update.
2 removed nodes replaced with nodes in South Korea and Switzerland. 1 because it’s down (hence the proposal), and the other to improve decentralisation. Looks great, I’ve voted to adopt.
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
0 km
7144.537 km
15453.375 km
PROPOSED
489.837 km
7472.928 km (+4.6%)
15453.375 km
This proposal increases decentralisation, considered purely in terms of geographic distance (and therefore there’s a slight theoretical increase in localised disaster resilience).
Subnet characteristic counts →
Continents
Countries
Data Centers
Owners
Node Providers
EXISTING
4
12
13
13
13
PROPOSED
4
13 (+7.7%)
13
13
13
This proposal 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.
Other good neurons to follow:
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)
CodeGov (actively reviews and votes on Subnet Management proposals, and is well informed on numerous other technical topics)
WaterNeuron (the WaterNeuron DAO frequently discuss proposals like this in order to vote responsibly based on DAO consensus)
This proposal replaces 2 nodes in subnet e66qm including joich, which appears as “Status: Offline” in the dashboard. As shown in the proposal and verified using the DRE tool, decentralisation is improved with respect to country and all parameters remain within the requirements of the target topology.
Voted to adopt proposal 133445. The proposal replaces two nodes on the e66qm subnet: dead node joich (Offline) and node fr3jr (Active) with nodes l2bzb and 5oe2d. The node joich is healthy and only replaced in order to improve the Nakamoto Coefficient for the Country metric as verified with the Dre tool.
Voted to adopt proposal 134039, as the reasoning is sound and the proposal description matches the payload.
This proposal is intended to replace a dead node, l2bzb, which node appears as “Status: Offline” on the dashboard. As seen in the proposal (which I verified using the DRE tool), the proposed change leaves the target topology parameters unchanged and within the requirements.
TLDR: 1 offline node in South Korea replaced with an unassigned node in Australia. This proposal also slightly increases decentralisation in terms of geographic distance and also continent diversity. Looks good, I’ve adopted.
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
489.837 km
7472.928 km
15453.375 km
PROPOSED
489.837 km
8303.16 km (+11.1%)
16759.085 km (+8.4%)
This proposal slightly increases decentralisation, considered purely in terms of geographic distance (and therefore there’s a slight theoretical increase in localised disaster resilience).
Subnet characteristic counts →
Continents
Countries
Data Centers
Owners
Node Providers
Node Operator
EXISTING
4
13
13
13
13
13
PROPOSED
5 (+20%)
13
13
13
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 134039. The proposal replaces one nodes from subnet e66qm:
Removed Node: l2bzb, Dashboard Status Offline
Added Node: o2q5i.
The proposal was verified using the DRE tool to verify the metrics stated and there was no impact on decentralization.