3 ms·

Does it still consume vast amounts of CPU and memory? A few years back I used it on a few hundred GB and it almost constantly used 1-2 CPU cores. On the server

Does it still consume vast amounts of CPU and memory? A few years back I used it on a few hundred GB and it almost constantly used 1-2 CPU cores. On the server it racked up thousands of CPU hours, i.e. it cost real money to run. Apart from that I don't recall any major problems - which is very positive for anything related to file synchronization.

lscotte 8y ago
It never has for me, and I've got some large sync'd dirs (~70GB being the largest). Been using it for several years and it's great.
dantillberg 8y ago
I've used syncthing for a few years to synchronize 100k+ files and 10k+ folders. I used to regularly get CPU usage spikes from syncthing whenever it scanned folders for changes. The default operating mode of syncthing used to be "do a full scan every N (configurable) seconds for changes," and you needed to run a separate program (syncthing-inotify for me) to use filesystem watches instead. Those full scans would be cheap if you're synchronizing just a few folders, but it's CPU-expensive to regularly check tens of thousands of folders for changes (it might have been stat-ing every file for modtimes, too, I dunno). Over the past year or so, file watching (via inotify/etc) has been built into syncthing itself. I enabled watching on all my computers and syncthing's CPU usage has gone down considerably as a result, while user happiness has increased; I spend less time banging on syncthing's pipes and more time doing stuff with the files it synchronizes.
- GordonS 8y ago
  I tried it a few years ago on a mix on Linux and Windows systems and quickly abandoned it for Seafile because of the CPU issues. Any idea if it now supports (reliable) real-time file watching on Windows?
  - uvatbc 8y ago
    Windows and Mac support is much better these days. However, the case insensitive file system in Windows makes it annoying to use with *nix systems.

lscotte 8y ago

It never has for me, and I've got some large sync'd dirs (~70GB being the largest). Been using it for several years and it's great.

dantillberg 8y ago

I've used syncthing for a few years to synchronize 100k+ files and 10k+ folders. I used to regularly get CPU usage spikes from syncthing whenever it scanned folders for changes. The default operating mode of syncthing used to be "do a full scan every N (configurable) seconds for changes," and you needed to run a separate program (syncthing-inotify for me) to use filesystem watches instead. Those full scans would be cheap if you're synchronizing just a few folders, but it's CPU-expensive to regularly check tens of thousands of folders for changes (it might have been stat-ing every file for modtimes, too, I dunno). Over the past year or so, file watching (via inotify/etc) has been built into syncthing itself. I enabled watching on all my computers and syncthing's CPU usage has gone down considerably as a result, while user happiness has increased; I spend less time banging on syncthing's pipes and more time doing stuff with the files it synchronizes.

GordonS 8y ago
I tried it a few years ago on a mix on Linux and Windows systems and quickly abandoned it for Seafile because of the CPU issues. Any idea if it now supports (reliable) real-time file watching on Windows?
- uvatbc 8y ago
  Windows and Mac support is much better these days. However, the case insensitive file system in Windows makes it annoying to use with *nix systems.