kamborio

Members
  • Content Count

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About kamborio

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://kamborio.com/
  • Skype
    kamborio.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    London

Recent Profile Visitors

308 profile views
  1. In this particular instance I could. Although I cannot see much and the ones I have are for version 2.3.5 This is an edited log of the most important events I can see: [2016-04-02 22:30:24] MC[0D34] [9E60]: sending get_nodes message [2016-04-02 22:36:46] Change network from WIRED_NETWORK to NO_NETWORK [2016-04-02 22:36:46] SF[F90E]: Stop folder synchronization [2016-04-02 22:36:46] SF[F90E] [7B11]: peer lost [2016-04-02 22:36:46] SF[3AF3]: Stop folder synchronization [2016-04-02 22:36:46] SSPI[0x0000003be805f8d0]: Dispose SSPI connection [2016-04-02 22:36:46] SF[F90E]: Not loading torrents - sync is paused or fc error [2016-04-02 22:36:46] ScheduledTask: "ConnectMorePeers" invoked: timer, reason:ConnectMorePeers - sync is paused or fc error [2016-04-02 22:36:46] SF[F90E]: UpdatePeersStat [2016-04-02 22:36:46] ScheduledTask: "UpdatePeersStat" invoked: timer, reason:FinishStateSync [2016-04-02 22:36:46] SF[0D34]: UpdatePeersStat Down the logs it looks as if it connected to some peers but not all of them. If you want to the full logs please get me on Skype.
  2. I'd like to report another issue, I have seen it before and I think the problem did not exist in 2.2.x If you pause a VM and you start it again (for example when you restart the server that hosts the VMs), Sync will not connect again. I am using W2012 R2 Hyper-V. What I do when that happens is I restart the the service and everything works again.
  3. @RomanZ That explains the higher memory usage on the other server. It's been 72 hours since I reported the memory usage and I am glad to let you know that still at the same values (kB up or down). It seems the memory leak is gone.
  4. Memory usage is really good in this release. Main server (Read/Write), for 1.56M files in 7.11K folders - 1.6GB RAM Backup server (Read only), for 1.82M in 9.78K folders - 1.9GB RAM Note: The backup server has more files and folders because I am counting the .sync/Archive which I think makes a difference. Doesn't BitTorrent Sync trakcs the contents of the Archive to quickly restore a file and not transfer it again if it is restored on the other machine? So I think it is using much less memory than previous 2.3.x versions and doesn't seem to be leaking. CPU usage is still higher than 2.2.x but not exceptionally higher.
  5. Installed on 2 computers. Installation didn't go very well: 1st computer: Service stopped, install completed without errors. Service did not start automatically. After starting service manually all was working. 2nd computer: Service did not stop. Services console said "stopping" but it never stopped. Killed manually. Restarted installation. and this time it worked and service started automatically.
  6. I can imagine it can be a propper headache to deal with future dates. An error message would be helpful, I think I added the folder with version 2.3.3, it synced quite well among Windows clients but it failed on android. I only realized how to fix it when I upgraded to version 2.3.5 and a message came up on the screen. UPDATE: I just realized that I am still using version 2.3.3 on my desktop, so the message appeared using that version. I think the message only appears when you open Sync, not when you add the folder.
  7. Hello @RomanZ You surely remember how much I hate showing you my logs 2.3.5 is much better than 2.3.3 in terms of memory usage so happy at the moment. The issue only happened once. Let me try 2.3.6 and if it reoccurs I'll be in touch. I also had a problem with a mobile sync (android, sync not happening at all) because a file had a date set in the future (2095? or something like that). Once I change the date on the file everything worked fine. I was using 2.3.5 on the desktop and the latest available on the Play Store on the mobile.
  8. I'll test it in a few servers today. We are currently on 2.3.5 on all production machines, which by the way still has some memory issues, but less than 2.3.3. The other day an instance of Sync was using 32GB then it crashed and the service restarted itself. It only happened once.
  9. Thanks for confirming. I had some screenshots to prove my point but if you agree there was one I'll save my time. I have upgraded 1 machine to 2.3.5 today, more to follow. I will keep you posted. The machine I upgraded was a dual core with high CPU usage, it seems to have improved. I did try the "LOCAL SERVICE" approach and it works. Once you know it easy to use but I think you should use a similar approach to SQL Server install that makes it easy to choose which account to use.
  10. That particular instance has 1,640,556 files and 7,263 folders. According to your numbers it should use around 2,403 MB RAM but it was using 4,941 MB when I got the alert for low memory. I restarted the service and it is currently using 2,636 MB (it has been running 4 hours). So yes, I think that version 2.3.3 has a memory leak. I will test 2.3.4 on the offending machines and I will let you know.
  11. 1. When installing I have never seen the option to select "LOCAL SERVICE". It asks for username and password. 2. I'll give it a try 3. (and 4) Oh yes there is a memory leak somewhere. I got some servers starting with memory usage at 3.5 GB and then slowly using more memory until I have to restart the service, Ir particularly happens with servers with high number of files and frequent updates from peers. I will post a screenshot on a different post where you mentioned something about 1.5k RAM per file.
  12. After a week using 2.3.3 (jumped from 2.2.7), this is what I think: Love the new service install. Hate that you cannot install as SYSTEM (I mean, you can, but you have to stop service, change account, move config files to SYSTEM profile and start service... much easier if the install took care of that). I have not been able to configure and access remote GUI access yet. Hopefully options will be added to the UI in the near future to make this possible and also, to allow remote access from any IP via HTTPS. Memory usage: BAD, very BAD (compared to 2.2.7) I think there is a memory leak somewhere, I have seen cases of 11GB used by the process where before was 4GB (same machine, same number of files) CPU usage: SO SO. Not as good as 2.2.7. Makes me wonder if there are some debug options active?
  13. (1) Actually, it is design to do so. You have built in the capability of accessing the UI remotely BUT you have capped it by hard coding from where you can access it. That's fantastic in terms of security but not giving the option of overriding it, make the feature useless under certain circumstances. I can only think that you are doing so you can now sell us your upcoming "Sync IT". (2) I am well aware of what I need to know to circumvent your hard coding but it makes my life more difficult. You should be making my life (as an IT admin) easier, not harder. (3) I may be wrong here but I do not remember the option of using the SYSTEM account when I installed it (at least version 2.3.1)
  14. Hi RomanZ, Even if I make it work... I am still constrain by the "LAN only" constrain right? Anyway to circumvent that at this stage? Something else, somehow related... If I want to run the service under another user account (let's say SYSTEM), how easy is to move the configuration files and databases from one account to the other one?
  15. Maybe I did manage to make it work BUT I wasn't trying to access it from LAN, which defeats the whole purpose. Now that (at last) BitTorrent Sync can be installed as a service means that no longer it is necessary to logon to the server so it runs, hence in an ideal world why do we need to logon to the machine to change the settings if could be done remotely? Whilst I can understand why you would implement such measures and they indicate how serious you are about security by locking down as much as possible the default installation, why don't you let advanced users to circumvent those security measures?