• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About chillicane

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. thanks, ill collate that info. I will say however that im not using tracker or relay servers on the shares im only relying on peer to peer peer thats not a mouthful!
  2. I just checked my test machine and ive noticed it has not increased the number of entries in the devices tab - i would have hoped after 4 days it would have done some kind of peer exchange but it appears it has not occured! Tearing my hair out on this one!
  3. Symptoms started as a massive increase of the sync time and bandwidth used on the 'server' which intially changes the files (all other peers are read only). Also a seperate monitoring package showed some peers were no longer getting the latest version of the file and upon further investigation their 'devices' tab was empty and stayed that way over time (days). Im sure i read somewhere that the current linux version has a bug where peers are not 'expirng' from the devices list over time as they normally would so i have another theory now. Given the 50 peer limit, i think ive accidently created a set of 50 peers which will all sync fine but from 51 onwards they get blocked by the 'server' due to peer limits as shown in debug log (assigned as server by 'use predefiined hosts' option on all 'clients'). To work around this in the mean time i have given peers a few other random peers in 'use predefined hosts' section in the hope they will eventually get a link back to a peer which has access to the 'server' and amongst themselves go back to function as they did before. This is not ideal but it has the added side effect of making the overall bitstorm more robust in the long term. Implementing that fix is ongoing and i wont really know if its worked for a few days when i check to see if more peers have been exchanged on my sample peers. I know devs dont want to raise the peer limit as they are working on a (potentiall monitized) 'corporate' version of btsync which is great and certainly worth considering if they have the necesary features and the price is right but we dont actually have that version yet and ive been using this for over a year to deliver static files to clients in the best way i can imagine. I know it pisses off every cold calling/spamming corporate pricks who keep trying to sell me cloud based sync solutions at per year volume licensing! Right now i would love to see a private tracking only component which i could use to co-ordinate peers (i know theres the third party one). Overall im extremely happy with this program, its a fantiasticly useful application/adaption of the torrent protocol.
  4. after watching for a few days it looks like the peer list entires are expiring but not being refreshed when peers should be exchanging lists with each other. If i add a peer manually it picks it up straight away. Could this be a hangup because of upgrading? Is there a way i can force refresh the peer lists, delete some files perhaps?
  5. Alright, by doing some DNAT trickery i got the peers talking straight to a windows source and the PEX seems to have worked better - based on a few samples i checked. Prhaps the issue is only in the linux sync?
  6. I have ~160 peers (windows) which all get their files from a central server (linux) which in turn gets its files from a handful of internal machines (windows) with the view that the peers will share the load (bandwidth) amongst themselves. I just upgraded them from 1.2.68 to 1.3.106 and on the previous version it worked pretty well, barring a couple of nodes which must have some environmental issues. Now im seeing nodes dropping all their peers from their device lists and only syncing with the central server which isnt exactly in the spirit of what we're trying to achieve here! I only upgraded because i read some release notes somewhere about reduced 'chatter' amongst peers but its not looking good so far. Happy to provide more information to assist in this one! Update - manually adding peers to the predfined hosts works for that peer but it does not kick start the peer exchange process. Update again - am bypassing the linux sync server to see if it will work better with only the windows version, will update
  7. I have witnessed this on a windows installation (a few versions ago however) but i cannot offer any explanation. Certainly not normal behaivour tho
  8. I would also like some clarification on this issue - it reads as Modifications made in such a folder will not be displayed on other devices in sync This suggests as though perhaps deleting files (an act of modification on the read only side) will not cause a refresh of the data because only data changed on the 'server' side will signify a change.
  9. I am positive that peers exchange peer lists with each other or at the very least, the server listed as 'use prededifend hosts' shares its peer list. Its working for me again now ive flushed the peer lists from sync.dat All my read only endpoints are only set to use lan sync and predifined host - no dht, no tracker, no relay - and it definetly works. Most endpoints arent even on the same lan as others, they go out thru the internet and i use port forwarding to allow a bidirection connection. I think the read only thing is simply a way of saying, if we change files in here dont push them out - just ignore, they should still seed for other peers. I have definetly watched them download off other read only peers when syncing. My problem appears to have simply been that the cached peer list was dirty after the upgrade and there was no clean way to flush it without removing the folder shares.
  10. This stuff gets really tricky to discuss without a diagram but here goes. My read only nodes were only supposed to ever recieve data - not send it, check. Other nodes were definetly able to replicate thru nodes which only had a read only key. What might be different in my case was that all nodes have access to my 'main server' which theoritically should have a complete list of all peers which it will share with all other peers so they can, um...., find peers! Each read only share had an entry in 'use predefined hosts' which points back to my 'main server' so it should always be contactable. Also once an initial peer listing has been garnered even if there is a break in communications somewhere, each peer should be able to reconstruct a compelte list from all the other peers. But that initial sync of peer listsings comes from the 'main server' Make sense? Are we even talking about the same thing? Boy i hope so coz its starting to give me a headache!
  11. Yes i understand that - im talking about the 30 odd endpoints ive already upgraded are not talking to each other. In a genius move i tried deleting some of the settings files on my install here and lost my keys, which of course i had neglected to back up anywhere so it looks like i'll be starting again anyway. Rookie mistake and boy do i feel stupid. Anyway, after re-adding a few i checked and they appear to be syncing better now so im guessing its the data in sync.dat isnt being refreshed properly when i run the new binary. Moot point now coz ill have to re-add them all. It would be nice do have 1 file that has peer caching seperate to the file that has shared folder data so we can flush the peer data without removing the shared folder data.
  12. Im in the process of upgrading ~165 btsync installs from 1.1.15 to 1.1.48. All of the 'client' endpoints have readonly keys to sync the data from the 'server' side - the idea being they can share the actual load of transferring bits amongts themselves. Unfortunatley, so far at least, the 'client' endpoints are only connecting to the 'server' device and not each other - they are not showing each other in their respective devices tab. This was working prior to the upgrade and ive made no configuration changes during the process. Any ideas?
  13. This ones just a theory but i noticed in the logs that it appears as tho the internal 'peer list' is getting full and its ignoring new peers once it hits a certain count. Perhaps as this occurs older peers are dropping off the list and newer ones being appended and this processes keeps repeating so the same rather large list of peers is just being cycled over and over again. Clutching at straws now but hopefully i can find an answer!
  14. I should clarify these are all windows machines. I just fired up the ol' wireshark on my pc and straight away 1500 packets in 10 seconds of 'meta data' for 'BSYNC' for all different endpoints - and no files are being synced currently. If i was syncing more than 50mb a day the excess chatter wouldnt be an issue but at the moment it looks like more bandwidth is spent in syncing peer lists and other meta data than actual file data