I might have a few hours a month to help out if there’s something I feel I can help with.

You aren’t giving us enough information to even speculate the answer. Are these Enterprise grade servers in a datacenter? Are these home made servers with consumer or low grade hardware you’re calling servers? Are they in the same datacenter or do they go out to the Internet? What exists between the hops on the network? Is the latency consistent? What is the quality of both sides of the connection? Fiber? Wi-Fi? Mobile? Satellite?

Does it drop too nothing or just settle into a constant slower speed? What have you tried to trouble shoot? Is it only rsync or do other tests between the hosts show the same behavior?

Give us more and you might get some help. If these hosts are Linux I would start with iperf to do a more scientific test. And report to us some more info.

There is a storied history in computing to use tongue in cheek self referential acronyms to denote some humor and finality in distinguishing things that purposely fill a niche in the world of competing, often pricey, commercial software and other hackable reasons.

So I bet you’re rubbing wrong those of us who remember that gnu is not unix, and more specifically wine is not an emulator. Because they really aren’t.

I don’t believe this is possible and actively protected against in the dht protocol implementation.

The return value for a query for peers includes an opaque value known as the “token.” For a node to announce that its controlling peer is downloading a torrent, it must present the token received from the same queried node in a recent query for peers. When a node attempts to “announce” a torrent, the queried node checks the token against the querying node’s IP address. This is to prevent malicious hosts from signing up other hosts for torrents. Since the token is merely returned by the querying node to the same node it received the token from, the implementation is not defined. Tokens must be accepted for a reasonable amount of time after they have been distributed. The BitTorrent implementation uses the SHA1 hash of the IP address concatenated onto a secret that changes every five minutes and tokens up to ten minutes old are accepted.

I believe you would have to know the torrent first, then you could discover other nodes. This is probably why that tool can’t tell you anything outside of it’s known list of torrents.

Source: http://bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0005.html

Maybe I’m misunderstanding the purpose or goal but wouldn’t this be perfect use case for a virtual machine? I’m surprised no one has suggested that. A one off temporary, easily reverted back to pristine with snapshots sounds like exactly what you would want for testing something like this out.

It’s extremely common in Enterprise where costs for a 100k+ server isn’t the most expensive part of running, maintaining, servicing said server. If your home lab isn’t practicing 3-2-1 backups (at least three copies of your data, two local (on-site) but on different media/devices, and at least one copy off-site) yet, I’d spend money on that before ECC.

From the link:

@PriorProjectEnglish7

The answers in this thread are surprisingly complex, and though they contain true technical facts, their conclusions are generally wrong in terms of what it takes to maintain file integrity. The simple answer is that ECC ram in a networked file server can only protect against memory corruption in the filesystem, but memory corruption can also occur in application code and that’s enough to corrupt a file even if the file server faithfully records the broken bytestream produced by the app.

If you run a Postgres container, and the non-ecc DB process bitflips a key or value, the ECC networked filesystem will faithfully record that corrupted key or value. If the DB bitflips a critical metadata structure in the db file-format, the db file will get corrupted even though the ECC networked filesystem recorded those corrupt bits faithfully and even though the filesystem metadata is intact.
If you run a video transcoding container and it experiences bitflips, that can result in visual glitches or in the video metadata being invalid… again even if the networked filesystem records those corrupt bits faithfully and the filesystem metadata is fully intact.

ECC in the file server prevents complete filesystem loss due to corruption of key FS metadata structures (or at least memory bit-flips… but modern checksumming fs’s like ZFS protect against bit-flips in the storage pretty well). And it protects from individual file loss due to bitflips in the file server. It does NOT protect from the app container corrupting the stream of bytes written to an individual file, which is opaque to the filesystem but which is nonetheless structured data that can be corrupted by the app. If you want ECC-levels of integrity you need to run ECC at all points in the pipeline that are writing data.

That said, I’ve never run an ECC box in my homelab, have never knowingly experienced corruption due to bit flips, and have never knowingly had a file corruption that mattered despite storing and using many terabytes of data. If I care enough about integrity to care about ECC, I probably also care enough to run multiple pipelines on independent hardware and cross-check their results. It’s not something I would lose sleep over.

DDR5 has built in data checking which is ECC without the automatic correction which might be worthwhile depending on your setup.

Your ECC on the pi i believe isn’t for the memory chip but for the on chip die’s cache for ARM.

For me personally, if my racked server supports it, I get ECC. If it doesn’t, I don’t sweat it. Redundance in drives, power, and networking is much more important to me and are order of magnitudes higher chance of failing from my anecdotal experience. If I can save those dollars for another higher probably failure, I do that.

DNS is a lynchpin of my network (and wife approval factor) which I splurge a bit for with physical redundance of an identical mini computer that runs it and fail over to same ip if the first box fails. Those considerations are way before if the server has ECC. Just my $0.02.

Slowly moving to nixos for everything but still have a few laptops on arch. For servers I’m on CentOS for work compat/similarity. And one Ubuntu server for Plex.