Skip to content
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

Sync sync progress #8773

Closed
BartG95 opened this issue Feb 4, 2023 · 6 comments
Closed

Sync sync progress #8773

BartG95 opened this issue Feb 4, 2023 · 6 comments
Labels
enhancement New features or improvements of some kind, as opposed to a problem (bug) needs-triage New issues needed to be validated

Comments

@BartG95
Copy link

BartG95 commented Feb 4, 2023

The double 'sync' is not a typo.

Suppose a cluster of three devices, Alpha, Bravo and Charlie.
They are all connected, but Alpha and Bravo are seldom simultaneously online. Charlie is almost always online.
When Alpha updates a file, it will sync to Charlie. Then Alpha goes offline, Bravo goes online, and Bravo receives the update from Charlie. Then Bravo goes offline, Alpha goes online.
Alpha will show that is has pending updates for Bravo, while in fact, those updates are already on Bravo.

Maybe Charlie can sync this sync progress?

@BartG95 BartG95 added enhancement New features or improvements of some kind, as opposed to a problem (bug) needs-triage New issues needed to be validated labels Feb 4, 2023
@nekr0z
Copy link
Contributor

nekr0z commented Feb 4, 2023

Charlie has no way of knowing that Alpha even knows that Bravo exists, unless there's a common introducer.

Syncing the sync status via a common introducer or a chain of introducers may be feasible, though. I think I could try to work on this, if maintainers think such a feature would be welcome.

@calmh
Copy link
Member

calmh commented Feb 4, 2023

This is not a trivial addition, I think, and I'm unsure it's worth it.

@BartG95
Copy link
Author

BartG95 commented Feb 4, 2023

Charlie has no way of knowing that Alpha even knows that Bravo exists, unless there's a common introducer.

Well, sync that as well?

But yeah, I am aware of the complexity of this.

@nekr0z
Copy link
Contributor

nekr0z commented Feb 4, 2023

Well, sync that as well?

That's potentially leaking information that may be private; not worth it for a convenience feature like this one.

@acolomb
Copy link
Member

acolomb commented Feb 4, 2023

Actually the ClusterConfig message does include information about third parties sharing the same folders, at least for a distance of one hop. That is valuable and useful, though not currently getting exposed within Syncthing in any way. Something I initially set out to improve, but didn't get to work on much lately.

Regarding the original feature request, I'd also think it complicates things much more than is the actual benefit.

@calmh
Copy link
Member

calmh commented Mar 10, 2023

I don't think we want to do this.

@calmh calmh closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Mar 10, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New features or improvements of some kind, as opposed to a problem (bug) needs-triage New issues needed to be validated
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants