Hello,
Sorry to bother you all.
At the moment I have Layout 2, but I would really like Layout 1 in case one of the servers has a failure. I can then fall back to it knowing it’s up-to-date, while I fix the failed machine.
Is this safe?
Thank you!
Chris
Both should work equally fine. (#1 of course better if Server1 is down:)
I’m curious what you mean by “safe”.
Less or equally no more likely to f up.
Layout 1 will get more complicated as you scale, especially if you have more than one share that is not shared with the same devices. If you have conflicts or sync issues, it can be a nightmare to isolate.
You might consider Layout 1, but without the sync link between clients. Or, just sync link servers and then sync link client to its “home” / Primary server
Thank you for this 
I’ve completely taken your comment on board and wonder if this revised scheme is practical for my use case - I’ve re-arranged the diagram to make it clearer (to my self mostly!).
99% of the changes I make to files occur on PC1, so I thought it might make sense to make that top tier. Then files sync to Server 1 that’s always on. If I’m having a productive day, I tend to turn Server 2 on, so that in the event of a complete failure of Server 2, I would only have lost 30mins of work. I could then keep working and sort out the failed Server when able.
It may be worth knowing that both Server 1 & Server 2 consist of a mirrored pair of drives, the only difference between them is that every few hours, Server 1 is also backed-up with BackBlaze.
There is also a Server 4 (also mirrored pair) that I turn on every weekend and that receives the syncthing folders in snapshot replication form.
This may seem overkill, but I hate re-doing work, if I spent 1 day working, then lost it all, I would be incredibly annoyed with myself when the next day is spent re-doing the work at no additional income!
Very much welcome your thoughts on this one:
Personally, I’d never want to rely on a single device as the point of failure (which is “Server 1” in your case as the only connection between “PC 1” and “Laptop 1”. You don’t need to connect with one another absolutely everything, but I always like to have at least 2 points of failure.
Thank you @tomasz86 , you’re right, I have created that.
Do you think I should add the dashed or dotted line Sync connection?
Thank you
Definitely dashed. If Server 2 is going to be offline most of the time, it’s the same as if it simply wasn’t there, especially if Server 1 fails and Server 2 has only old copies of the files.
Just for the sake of reference, and I’m not sure of how much help this will be, below is more or less what I normally do. Please forgive the darkish hand drawing 
.
In general, I like to connect all desktop PCs located in the same location with each other. When it comes to mobile devices, I like to to connect them with selected desktop devices only, mainly to save battery. The case is similar with low-end devices and/or devices located on slow networks, as they simply can’t keep up with managing too many connections.
Thank you @tomasz86 , really helpful to see someone else’s arrangement, good drawing!
dashed it is, I shall implement shortly
Really appreciate you spending time explaining things, thank you 
No problem 
.
I forgot to add one important thing which is that we like to keep all devices turned on and running 24/7. This way you can always be sure that the files are in their newest iteration as soon as sit at the computer which also reduces the risk of potential conflicts. Yes, it does use more energy, but the desktop computers are all quite low power, using only 20-30 watts when idle, so it’s not a big deal for us.
Thank you again matey I totally agree, computers consume very little power and my “always on” server is a low power unit (30w). In this situation though, I’m working from home and am the only ST user (for now!), I’m also the bill payer 
So I do turn machines off when not in use, but also 99% of file changes happen on PC1. Hopefully this method doesn’t wreck the sync’ing of my files!
