2 ms·
Does anyone have experience with Syncthing in high-latency connection scenarios, for example across continents? I need to bring and keep up to date tens of TBs
by Arn_Thor 3y ago
Does anyone have experience with Syncthing in high-latency connection scenarios, for example across continents? I need to bring and keep up to date tens of TBs between a couple of servers very far apart (~200ms ping). Almost everything I've tried transfers at a fraction of the speeds possible. The exception is Rclone where I'm able to properly saturate the connection.
- aesh2Xa1 3y agohttps://garagehq.deuxfleurs.fr https://garagehq.deuxfleurs.fr Garage claims performance across long distances (up to 200ms per their front page). It's not a POSIX file system. Instead it's more like S3. You could put something in front of it, perhaps, to make it POSIX.
- Arn_Thor 3y agoThanks for the suggestion! I'll look into it. I just double-checked and it seems the ping I'm dealing with is just a little bit above their recommended limit
- 5e92cb50239222b 3y ago200ms is not "very far apart". I routinely use it on 350-450ms connections with no issues — it easily saturates my 500 Mbps link. Although in your case I would probably use ZFS snapshots through syncoid, they'd be much more efficient than anything else.
- otbutz 3y agoYou could try to force QUIC which should handle latency a bit better. The priority of TCP/QUIC will be configurable with the upcoming v1.23.5 release: https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/pull/8868 https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/pull/8868