Skip to content

Maximum amount of peer #879

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
LeReverandNox opened this issue Oct 19, 2014 · 23 comments
Closed

Maximum amount of peer #879

LeReverandNox opened this issue Oct 19, 2014 · 23 comments
Labels
bug A problem with current functionality, as opposed to missing functionality (enhancement) frozen-due-to-age Issues closed and untouched for a long time, together with being locked for discussion

Comments

@LeReverandNox
Copy link

Hello,
We currently use Syncthing for an amateur project involving more than 60 users on the same shared master folder, from our server. (currently 66 peers)
Since that we exceed 63 users at she same time, nobody can synchronize anymore. We have to unselect some of their nodes, falling back to 63, so the others can keep synchronizing.

Is there a limit on the amount of peer that we can share with from a single client ?

Thanks
(Please excuse my awfull English...)

@calmh
Copy link
Member

calmh commented Oct 19, 2014

What version are you running? There should be no 63 peer limit since v0.8, or I've missed something weird.

@LeReverandNox
Copy link
Author

Thank you for your answer.
I'm running the current latest release, 0.10.2 Linux x64 on a Debian Wheezy

@calmh
Copy link
Member

calmh commented Oct 19, 2014

What errors are you seeing then?

@LeReverandNox
Copy link
Author

When I exceed 63 peer, for each connection I got the following error =>

[IABET] 21:07:38 INFO: Established secure connection to XXXXXXX-XXXXXXX-XXXXXXX-XXXXXXX-XXXXXXX-XXXXXXX-XXXXXXX-XXXXXXX at [ServerIP]:[Port]-[ClientIP]:[Port]
[IABET] 21:07:38 INFO: Connection to XXXXXXX-XXXXXXX-XXXXXXX-XXXXXXX-XXXXXXX-XXXXXXX-XXXXXXX-XXXXXXX closed: EOF

Is there another log that I can give to you ?

@calmh
Copy link
Member

calmh commented Oct 19, 2014

Anything on the other side?

@LeReverandNox
Copy link
Author

On the "client" side, I get this message =>
[2BNTH] 21:14:39 INFO: Established secure connection to [NodeID Server] at [ClientIP]:[Port]-[ServeirIP]:[Port]
[2BNTH] 21:14:39 INFO: Connection to [NodeID Server] closed: xdr read: EOF

@AudriusButkevicius
Copy link
Member

Are both sides running the same version?

@LeReverandNox
Copy link
Author

Yes, we're all running on 0.10.2

@AudriusButkevicius
Copy link
Member

@calmh why was there a 63 limit in the first place?
I found this which is interesting:

Folder Structure:

 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                         Length of ID                          |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/                                                               /
\                     ID (variable length)                      \
/                                                               /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                       Number of Devices                       |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/                                                               /
\                Zero or more Device Structures                 \
/                                                               /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


struct Folder {
    string ID<64>;
    Device Devices<64>;
}

@calmh
Copy link
Member

calmh commented Oct 20, 2014

!!!

That's the cause, for sure. That shouldn't be there any more, that limit on number of devices should be removed (and the error message should be fixed so we can figure out why when similar things pop up in the future).

(As for why; in the early days, internally the index was based on a bitfield stored in an uint64. Bit zero was the local host, the rest of the bits where remote nodes. Checking for availability was a simple AND operation.)

@calmh calmh added the bug A problem with current functionality, as opposed to missing functionality (enhancement) label Oct 20, 2014
@calmh calmh added this to the v1.0 milestone Oct 20, 2014
@calmh
Copy link
Member

calmh commented Oct 20, 2014

Resolved by #886.

(Note to self: remember to investigate and fix that error message. "EOF" sucks to signal a protocol error.)

@calmh calmh closed this as completed Oct 20, 2014
@LeReverandNox
Copy link
Author

Okay, i'm glad you guys have find out the problem. Thanks a lot for your reactivity.
Until it's released, I'll run 2 syncthing simultaneously on 2 differents ports, dividing the peers.
It's a good workaround for now.

@AudriusButkevicius
Copy link
Member

I guess you could compile master branch and tell us if its fixed :)

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Oct 21, 2014

... or just download a copy from http://build.syncthing.net/job/syncthing/

@AudriusButkevicius
Copy link
Member

Yes! good point

@LeReverandNox
Copy link
Author

Hi guys, I just tried the latest dev-build, and the problem is still there =/
Still can't have more than 63 peers.

@AudriusButkevicius
Copy link
Member

Are all nodes using the latest dev build?

@LeReverandNox
Copy link
Author

No, the other nodes use the 0.10.2 release.
We deal with people with very a low understanding of the situation, they only use the update from the Web GUI

@AudriusButkevicius
Copy link
Member

I guess you'll have to wait till the next release, as this is a two way issue.

@LeReverandNox
Copy link
Author

Okay no problem, thank's for you answer !
We will continue to use 2 different Syncthing until then.

@selfuntitled
Copy link

Just to clarify - this is in theory fixed in the current 11.0 beta6 or 10.3? I don't see this ticket number referenced in any of the release notes.

@rumpelsepp
Copy link
Contributor

check this one: #886

@calmh
Copy link
Member

calmh commented Apr 14, 2015

This was fixed in v0.10.3.

@st-review st-review added the frozen-due-to-age Issues closed and untouched for a long time, together with being locked for discussion label Jun 16, 2017
@syncthing syncthing locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 16, 2017
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
bug A problem with current functionality, as opposed to missing functionality (enhancement) frozen-due-to-age Issues closed and untouched for a long time, together with being locked for discussion
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants