(I filed this as a bug report but got redirected here)
Hello amazing people !
I’ve added an untrusted device (let’s call it U) to my normally working setup and it’s struggling to do the initial synch of all the folders.
It got around 80% of the data with no problem, synchronised full folders, but it’s struggling with the last 2 of them.
The synchronisation rate dropped to 1 byte per second, syncthing uses around 8-14GiB memory on U now and 2 full CPU cores, but not on any of the other hosts.
When restarted, the syncthing process on U seems to get better for a while, downloading at around 50KiB/s (normally it would be ~30MiB/s for that machine) but then deteriorates again quite quickly.
I’m on Linux (all devices that sync together, except one which is Android). U is an NixOS server,
U and most of the other devices are running Syncthing 1.18.0.
The server log is presented as is, just with device IDs partially obscured, the laptop log is an excerpt, only including lines concerning the server device.
hope this helps and let me know if I could help in any way
I can see there is a lot of filepaths in the log after enabling model debugging, is there a way to automatically anonymise those ? I consider them sensitive and wouldn’t want to post them publicly.
Now it shouldn’t be hasing anything there as it’s a receive-encrypted folder (easily corrected bug). I’d still like to know why it’s using 12GB of memory doing that. Have you modified any advanced settings, especially copier?
I guess there is no indication here, but how big are the files?
I wonder if we somehow read the encrypted size without decrypting, and then fallocate a massive temp file and then when trying to reuse blocks from the temp file, end up allocating a massive []Hash slice based on some absurd size hint.
Binary has the same hash across different boxes and the same binary was used with great success to sync the 200GiB or so of the whole library over to the 5 other boxes without any problems, the only problematic one is the untrusted one, my assumption would be that the difference is in the encrypted folder handling perhaps ?
I think it has to be something like what you proposed - some value that’s set to something unexpected in the encrypted case. Still no clue how/what/why.