Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Syncthing Usage Data

data.syncthing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 125 posts

Re: Syncthing Usage Data

#81

Post by Nutomic »

pricechild wrote: post #58
josephb wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those with some spare CPU cycles and bandwidth you can give back to the project by running a relay server. https://docs.syncthing.net/users/strelaysrv.html Eg that VM running a DNS adblocker, from another front page article :)

What's the drive or motivation behind people running syncthing discovery & relay servers? Do they generally then run their own clients to only use their own servers? With Tor I'm convinced over the "speech should be free, I'm making the world a better place" type argument. With syncthing I'm incredibly impressed that this optional (but incredibly useful) infrastructure is being run by people for free since it doesn't…

I think people just want to help others, and do something useful with their spare resources. I run a relay on a server on my home internet connection, so it doesn't cost me anything.

Re: Syncthing Usage Data

#82

Post by Nutomic »

pedrocr wrote: post #54
noja wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you running an official build? This page indicates that your usage should be around 80 megs (with the gui closed): https://forum.syncthing.net/t/huge-ram-usage-2gb-on-synology... and that an unofficial NAS-specific build had a problem with high ram usage.

I always ran official builds, my NAS are just standard x86 servers. Last time I checked was January 2015: https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/issues/468#issuecomme... Since that bug was closed with no solution I'm not too hopeful but maybe I should try it again.

If you can reproduce the issue, be sure to post on the forum so we can figure out the cause.

Re: Syncthing Usage Data

#83

Post by CyberShadow »

robinson-wall wrote: post #64

Interesting drop in the numbers when version 0.12 was released. Does anyone know what that was about?

IIRC it was due to the new version having a protocol incompatibility with the old version, which means that users needed to upgrade SyncThing on all of their devices simultaneously to keep using it. I can certainly see how that could be a hassle especially when SyncThing is installed via a package manager or in the case of the Android app, where different sources provide different versions.

Re: Syncthing Usage Data

#84

Post by amelius »

jamwt wrote: post #75
dragly wrote: post #2

It amazes me that Syncthing handles rapidly-changing files better for me than Dropbox. Where Dropbox has left different versions of files on different computers even after they have changed multiple times, Syncthing happily synchronizes them without issues. And the fact that Syncthing is open source and allows me to keep files on my own machines is a big plus. However, I would love to see a paid option for easy backu…

Just a heads up: that almost certainly means SyncThing is failing to recognize some classes of conflicts and concurrency races, and is destroying some changes. Doing this right is a hard problem. I know they can be a pain to deal with, but we don't spin out conflicts for no reason! Disclosure: I work on the Dropbox sync engine.

Are you saying that you solve conflicts specifically for different types of applications (e.g., Word, Photoshop, Excel)? That's impressive. However, now I'm wondering how I get my own apps supported.

Re: Syncthing Usage Data

#85

Post by phaemon »

canton7 wrote: post #74
phaemon wrote: post #71

This looks pretty cool, and I'll definitely look at it as a Dropbox replacement. On the negative side, your stats page doesn't have a link back to your main page, so you won't even know how many folk had a look based on this HN post. It's a good idea to ensure that all your pages have a link back to your main page.

Yeah that page which was linked to isn't really part of the website: it's a separate site entirely, which is a frontend to the data-collection service. People aren't really supposed to link to it directly as a means of introducing new people to Syncthing...

Indeed, but you never know what page someone might submit to a site like HN, so it's usually a good idea to have a link back to your main site on all pages.

For example, they could like to your Forum page (which doesn't have a link to your main page). Or to your Github page (which has a link to the Forum, but not to the main page). Or your Docs page (which...well, you get the idea).

Sites that have witty and inventive 404 pages sometimes get those publicised. You really never know what someone will choose to submit.

Re: Syncthing Usage Data

#86

Post by tedcrilly »

pricechild wrote: post #62
vocatus_gate wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh boy can I ever. We used Resilio Sync (aka Bittorrent Sync aka BT Sync) for a while for the Tron project ( https://reddit.com/r/TronScript ). It worked great for our use-case: distributing a large number of files to a large number of nodes who required read-only access. Anytime I changed a file on the master node it would blast out to everyone else while simultaneously preventing any other node in the swarm from pr…

That's interesting... so even the original 'master' client is treated equally? Other clients can decide to send/receive amongst themselves? How do you deal with that?

There is no concept of a single "Master". The folder types are "Send & Receive" and "Send only" and the latter will not accept changes from any other client. I still agree it's not the best solution for a network you don't control and that might have a malicious actor in it.

Re: Syncthing Usage Data

#87

Post by SunSparc »

XorNot wrote: post #24
dragly wrote: post #2

It amazes me that Syncthing handles rapidly-changing files better for me than Dropbox. Where Dropbox has left different versions of files on different computers even after they have changed multiple times, Syncthing happily synchronizes them without issues. And the fact that Syncthing is open source and allows me to keep files on my own machines is a big plus. However, I would love to see a paid option for easy backu…

Does syncthing have a backup option? Last I recall it didn't, which kind of soured me on it - in an ideal world every sync operation would be prefaced with "send a backup to one of my backup endpoints first".

Backing up your filesystem can and really should be part of an entirely different process. Let syncthing focus on syncing. Get CrashPlan, rsync, or some other process going on your filesystem for backups. Unless you are hoping for backing up every single version of your documents.

Re: Syncthing Usage Data

#88

Post by 2bluesc »

josephb wrote: post #26
vocatus_gate wrote: post #19

As a heavy user of Syncthing for the Tron project ( https://reddit.com/r/TronScript ) I'm excited to see how well Syncthing is doing, and really appreciate the hard work from the devs. We spun up a Syncthing node to distribute the project after Resilio Sync (formerly "BT Sync") put a hard cap on the number of nodes that were allowed to connect. Keep up the great work, team!

For those with some spare CPU cycles and bandwidth you can give back to the project by running a relay server. https://docs.syncthing.net/users/strelaysrv.html Eg that VM running a DNS adblocker, from another front page article :)

I created a Docker syncthing relay image[0][1] to enable quick deployment to put on some of my servers with extra bandwidth and memory (alot (>500) of connections quickly exhausts a cheap 512MB instance doing other things and the OOM killer runs).

What I find most shocking is that somehow my instance (in SF via DigitalOcean, surprise) is the only relay[2] on the West coast the majority of the time. How is that? It also is one of the busiest relays by connection count showing that plenty of people in the Bay Area are selecting it likely due to latency.

Checkout more relay stats: http://relays.syncthing.net/

[0] https://github.com/kylemanna/docker-syncthing-relay

[1] https://hub.docker.com/r/kylemanna/syncthing-relay/

[2] http://relays.syncthing.net/

Re: Syncthing Usage Data

#89

Post by 2bluesc »

Nutomic wrote: post #81
pricechild wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the drive or motivation behind people running syncthing discovery & relay servers? Do they generally then run their own clients to only use their own servers? With Tor I'm convinced over the "speech should be free, I'm making the world a better place" type argument. With syncthing I'm incredibly impressed that this optional (but incredibly useful) infrastructure is being run by people for free since it doesn't…

I think people just want to help others, and do something useful with their spare resources. I run a relay on a server on my home internet connection, so it doesn't cost me anything.

> I think people just want to help others, and do something useful with their spare resources. I run a relay on a server on my home internet connection, so it doesn't cost me anything.

Same. The devs the contribute their time to build syncthing, the least I can do to help their (our?) cause is to spend 10-60 minutes to setup a relay and spend 5 minutes to babysit it every other month.

Re: Syncthing Usage Data

#90

Post by interfixus »

Nicely, nicely crafted software, and getting better by each bump. I have been running it like forever between various Android devices, day to day PC, backup server, and whichever relevant devices have been passing through the household. Just works, can't recommend it enough. The GTK gui is a handy extra.
Post reply on HN