This topic is intended to capture Subnet Management activities over time for the ejbmu 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:
This proposal sets the notarisation delay of the subnet to 300ms, down from 600ms. The change will increase the block rate of the subnet, aimed to reduce latency of update calls.
Here are the current metrics for this subnet. A question I’ll be asking on the Subnet Management General thread (see reference below this post) is why this update is being rolled out to so many subnets at once, each with different finalisation rate and transaction profiles (e.g. peaks and troughs, whereas the canary subnet was always steady, even prior to the update). I’m wondering if this limits the representativeness of the results on that canary subnet.
DFINITY will submit a proposal today to reduce the notarization delay on the subnet, ejbmu , similar to what has happened on other subnets in recent weeks (you can find all details in this forum thread ).
Thanks @dsharifi. Was this post intended for another subnet? (the notarisation delay has already been recently updated on ejbmu)
Update: I’ve reviewed the subnet metrics, re-reviewed the prior proposal, and also confirmed the current config of the subnet using IC-Admin. Having confirmed that this subnet already has a notarization delay of 300ms I’ve rejected the proposal (not that it would matter if this executed). As you would expect, and as pointed out by @Sat in the WaterNeuron DAO, these operations are idempotent
TLDR: I’ll adopt. The proposal links directly to what appears to be discussion with the NP about the proposal. Decentralisation stats look good.
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
321.16 km
7320.824 km
18192.393 km
PROPOSED
321.16 km
7824 km (+6.9%)
18192.393 km
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
4
13
13
13
13
13
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)
*This comment references the latest comment in the Subnet Management - General Discussion thread only to generate an automated cross-link from the general thread (to improve topic navigation).
You may wish to follow D-QUORUM if you found this analysis helpful.
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.
Additional good neurons to follow:
D-QUORUM (a highly decentralized neuron that follows neurons that have been elected by the NNS)
Synapse (currently 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)
Note that this analysis involved data provided by the IC-API, which is not open source. I’m in the process of switching over to more verifiable sources of this sort of information for future proposal reviews. See here for related discussion.
The proposal replaces two cordoned healthy Active status node 5w4eg from the AN1 Data Center in Belgium, and cordoned healthy Active status node aae7j from the CH2 Data Center in Illinois, with unassigned healthy Awaiting status node kv4yb from Florida and with unassigned healthy Awaiting status node 6zj3x from Hong Kong, without any change to the decentralization of the subnet.
The motivation makes sense and the provided Forum link included in the summary provides further info, also it can be checked here.
This proposal replaces 2 nodes, due to offboarding AN1 and CH2 data centres. Decentralisation parameters are unchanged and remain within the requirements of the target topology. Data centre details are consistent with the links provided in the proposal.
Replaces cordoned nodes 5w4eg and aae7j with nodes kv4yb and 6zj3x on subnet ejbmu.
The reason for this proposal is to offboard CH2 and AN1 DCs consistent with forum posts made on the forum thread used for posts regarding the renovation/sell of Gen-1 node machines by NPs.
Both the NP and DC stated in the forum post match the ones from the node being removed in the proposal.
There’s an open