Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
85 lines (66 loc) · 9.1 KB

1697289846067.md

File metadata and controls

85 lines (66 loc) · 9.1 KB

DataCap and CID Checker Report1

  • Organization: NebulaBlock
  • Client: f1gkp5flla6zsuluxtbrp2uoasw7oijsfctc5rvgq

Approvers

1cryptowhizzard
1igoovo
1kernelogic
1woshidama323

Storage Provider Distribution

The below table shows the distribution of storage providers that have stored data for this client.

If this is the first time a provider takes verified deal, it will be marked as new.

For most of the datacap application, below restrictions should apply.

Since this is the 3rd allocation, the following restrictions have been relaxed:

  • Storage provider should not exceed 70% of total datacap.
  • Storage provider should not be storing duplicate data for more than 20%.
  • Storage provider should have published its public IP address.
  • All storage providers should be located in different regions.

✔️ Storage provider distribution looks healthy.

Provider Location Total Deals Sealed Percentage Unique Data Duplicate Deals
f01955030 Shanghai, Shanghai, CN
China Mobile communications corporation		 5.28 TiB 11.58% 5.28 TiB 0.00%
f02017390 Shanghai, Shanghai, CN
China Telecom (Group)		 5.50 TiB 12.06% 5.50 TiB 0.00%
f02029115 Anqing, Anhui, CN
China Telecom (Group)		 3.91 TiB 8.56% 3.91 TiB 0.00%
f01955034 Hangzhou, Zhejiang, CN
CHINA UNICOM China169 Backbone		 5.47 TiB 11.99% 5.47 TiB 0.00%
f0240456 Chengdu, Sichuan, CN
CHINA UNICOM China169 Backbone		 512.00 GiB 1.10% 512.00 GiB 0.00%
f01390330 Xi’an, Shaanxi, CN
CHINANET-BACKBONE		 864.00 GiB 1.85% 864.00 GiB 0.00%
f01946551 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, US
Cox Communications Inc.		 384.00 GiB 0.82% 384.00 GiB 0.00%
f03624 Nürnberg, Bavaria, DE
Deutsche Telekom AG		 928.00 GiB 1.99% 928.00 GiB 0.00%
f01907556 Umm Al Quwain City, Imārat Umm al Qaywayn, AE
EMIRATES TELECOMMUNICATIONS GROUP COMPANY (ETISALAT GROUP) PJSC		 832.00 GiB 1.78% 832.00 GiB 0.00%
f08399 Bellevue, Washington, US
Isomedia, Inc.		 320.00 GiB 0.69% 320.00 GiB 0.00%
f01955028 Hangzhou, Zhejiang, CN
JINHUA, ZHEJIANG Province, P.R.China.		 5.50 TiB 12.06% 5.50 TiB 0.00%
f0717969 Los Angeles, California, US
Krypt Technologies		 960.00 GiB 2.06% 960.00 GiB 0.00%
f0187709 Moscow, Moscow, RU
MTS PJSC		 960.00 GiB 2.06% 960.00 GiB 0.00%
f01222595 Moscow, Moscow, RU
MTS PJSC		 608.00 GiB 1.30% 608.00 GiB 0.00%
f079426 Singapore, Singapore, SG
SingNet		 1.28 TiB 2.81% 1.28 TiB 0.00%
f01046069 Singapore, Singapore, SG
Starhub Ltd		 1.30 TiB 2.84% 1.30 TiB 0.00%
f01981571 London, England, GB
UCLOUD INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (HK) LIMITED		 3.88 TiB 8.50% 3.88 TiB 0.00%
f01970625 Lat Phrao, Bangkok, TH
UCLOUD INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (HK) LIMITED		 1.28 TiB 2.81% 1.28 TiB 0.00%
f0705704 Taipei, Taiwan, TW
UCLOUD INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (HK) LIMITED		 1.28 TiB 2.81% 1.28 TiB 0.00%
f01970622 Hong Kong, Central and Western, HK
UCLOUD INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (HK) LIMITED		 1.28 TiB 2.81% 1.28 TiB 0.00%
f01970630 Mumbai, Maharashtra, IN
UCLOUD INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (HK) LIMITED		 1.25 TiB 2.74% 1.25 TiB 0.00%
f01146045 Singapore, Singapore, SG
UCLOUD INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (HK) LIMITED		 1.25 TiB 2.74% 1.25 TiB 0.00%
f010088 Kirkland, Washington, US
Wholesail networks LLC		 960.00 GiB 2.06% 960.00 GiB 0.00%

Deal Data Replication

The below table shows how each many unique data are replicated across storage providers.

Since this is the 3rd allocation, the following restrictions have been relaxed:

  • No more than 70% of unique data are stored with less than 3 providers.

✔️ Data replication looks healthy.

Unique Data Size Total Deals Made Number of Providers Deal Percentage
48.00 GiB 48.00 GiB 1 0.10%
3.88 TiB 7.75 TiB 2 16.99%
256.00 GiB 768.00 GiB 3 1.64%
5.25 TiB 21.00 TiB 4 46.04%
224.00 GiB 1.31 TiB 6 2.88%
1.56 TiB 10.94 TiB 7 23.98%
192.00 GiB 1.50 TiB 8 3.29%
192.00 GiB 1.69 TiB 9 3.70%
64.00 GiB 640.00 GiB 10 1.37%

Deal Data Shared with other Clients2

The below table shows how many unique data are shared with other clients. Usually different applications owns different data and should not resolve to the same CID.

However, this could be possible if all below clients use same software to prepare for the exact same dataset or they belong to a series of LDN applications for the same dataset.

✔️ No CID sharing has been observed.

Footnotes

  1. To manually trigger this report, add a comment with text checker:manualTrigger ↩

  2. To manually trigger this report with deals from other related addresses, add a comment with text checker:manualTrigger <other_address_1> <other_address_2> ... ↩