Swap Client/Server

[kyleamorris]

I am using a Windows and Linux machine on Beta 4.  I have gotten them to successfully connect.  My problem is that it makes the server the client and works fine until I use the Windows mouse or keyboard, then nothing works until I reopen Synergy on the Linux machine.  I would really like the Windows machine to be the server but do not see a way to change or force it???

 

[CapnJoe]

Have you tried the f12 button to force being server ?

[kyleamorris]

I have tried that.  Now out of nowhere the machines can not see each other. :-( 

[CapnJoe]

46 minutes ago, kyleamorris said:

I have tried that.  Now out of nowhere the machines can not see each other. :-( 

please press `, submit your logs, and then copy the urls into this post.

[kyleamorris]

From the Linux machine 

https://synergy-logs.symless.com/2017-09-20/1147-2017-09-20T14-04-11.log 

[kyleamorris]

I can no longer get Synergy on the Windows machine to respond to the keyboard...

[kyleamorris]

OK, two reboots later, here is the Windows machine

https://synergy-logs.symless.com/2017-09-20/1147-2017-09-20T14-10-35.log 

[CapnJoe]

9 minutes ago, kyleamorris said:

OK, two reboots later, here is the Windows machine

https://synergy-logs.symless.com/2017-09-20/1147-2017-09-20T14-10-35.log 

ERROR: failed to get desktop path, no drop target available, error=2

 

Possible things to try - re position the desktop screens, at least initially to give it a kick.

verify you can ping each of the machines from the other and firewalls are turned off.

[kyleamorris]

I can ping the machines between one another.  I tried the trick with re-positioning the desktops with no luck.  Synergy 1.8 works fine if I fall back.  The Windows app becomes unresponsive after a certain amount of time until I reboot.  I believe that may be at least part of the issue.  

This is by no means a complaint but like many others have stated I do not believe this software is even ready to be considered in beta status.  It also feels like a downgrade from 1.8 at the moment.  

[kyleamorris]

I have fixed the unresponsive issue by reinstalling on the Windows machine.  Both machines show a box for itself and the other machine in the interface but only the machine you are on is green now.  Not sure which way to go.  

Thanks for the help. 

[kyleamorris]

Is this helpful?

[ Service ] [2017-09-20T15:10:16] debug: websocket read error: An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host

[beta-tester123]

On 9/20/2017 at 9:50 AM, CapnJoe said:

Have you tried the f12 button to force being server ?

I just setup the beta and searched quite a bit until I saw your post on how to force the server by using the f12 button.  Is there a link for documentation I completely missed finding?

[Kelvin Tran]

32 minutes ago, beta-tester123 said:

I just setup the beta and searched quite a bit until I saw your post on how to force the server by using the f12 button.  Is there a link for documentation I completely missed finding?

The "documentation" you're looking for should be located in the troubleshooting tips pinned to the top of these forums. Additionally, if you want to take a shortcut, click here for a direct link to where that forum post takes you. That should answer some of the more common and basic issues you'll have with beta4 before they come out with beta5 and a new guide if necessary. If that doesn't help you, don't hesitate to refer to this forum.

[Nick Bolton]

Hey, this'll be fixed in beta5 (due in about 4 weeks). Thanks for your patience!

[jaap aarts]

probably a problem with the linux service.

[Kelvin Tran]

On 9/20/2017 at 11:23 AM, kyleamorris said:

I am using a Windows and Linux machine on Beta 4.  I have gotten them to successfully connect.  My problem is that it makes the server the client and works fine until I use the Windows mouse or keyboard, then nothing works until I reopen Synergy on the Linux machine.  I would really like the Windows machine to be the server but do not see a way to change or force it???

 

11 hours ago, jaap aarts said:

probably a problem with the linux service.

Well, it's going to probably be an issue with either the Linux service itself or the connection between them, since restarting the Linux-portion of Synergy is a workaround for the issue, albeit a tedious one.

@kyleamorris, could you go and recreate the issue, but this time, instead of restarting the Linux service, restart the Windows service? If this works, it is ALMOST guaranteed (no actual guarantees here, just cowardly ones) to be the connection between them. However, if that doesn't work, then the Linux service itself will probably be at fault here (or shall I say, how Synergy is executed on Linux). If you've already done the steps I've suggested above, go ahead and post your findings here on the forums, firstly, out of curiosity and secondly, to help @Nick Bolton and his team to identify the root cause of the issue and fix it.

[kyleamorris]

@Kelvin Tran I tried that numerous times with no luck.  I do not think it is a connection issue as Synergy 1.x has worked for over a year between these machines and I can ping them from one another.  Let me know if you would like me to try anything else.  Thanks. 

[Nick Bolton]

5 hours ago, kyleamorris said:

@Kelvin Tran I tried that numerous times with no luck.  I do not think it is a connection issue as Synergy 1.x has worked for over a year between these machines and I can ping them from one another.  Let me know if you would like me to try anything else.  Thanks. 

It's definitely a bug.

[Kelvin Tran]

9 hours ago, kyleamorris said:

@Kelvin Tran I tried that numerous times with no luck.  I do not think it is a connection issue as Synergy 1.x has worked for over a year between these machines and I can ping them from one another.  Let me know if you would like me to try anything else.  Thanks. 

Yeah, but Synergy 1 uses a local network to connect, whereas Synergy 2 uses the cloud. The connection method is different, that's why I asked you to do what I asked you to do. What did you find?

I expect that those findings may help @Nick Bolton and his team to more easily track down the actual problem at work here.

[Nick Bolton]

10 hours ago, Kelvin Tran said:

I expect that those findings may help @Nick Bolton and his team to more easily track down the actual problem at work here.

I'll need to see his log to be sure, but I'm pretty confident it's got something to do with the unreliable connectivity test system in beta4 (which we're ripping out anyway and replacing with something entirely different; a new networking layer).

[kyleamorris]

14 hours ago, Kelvin Tran said:

Yeah, but Synergy 1 uses a local network to connect, whereas Synergy 2 uses the cloud. The connection method is different, that's why I asked you to do what I asked you to do. What did you find?

I expect that those findings may help @Nick Bolton and his team to more easily track down the actual problem at work here.

I did do what you asked and answered with "I tried that numerous times with no luck."  

I understand the connection is different but I thought Synergy 2 had a local fallback...if not...it should.  I often go "off the grid" to test software and hardware, without an internet connection Synergy won't work? 

3 hours ago, Nick Bolton said:

I'll need to see his log to be sure, but I'm pretty confident it's got something to do with the unreliable connectivity test system in beta4 (which we're ripping out anyway and replacing with something entirely different; a new networking layer).

I have sent logs a few times and do not have time today to recreate the issue, sorry.  If I do manage to get some time I will report back.  

[CapnJoe]

15 hours ago, Kelvin Tran said:

Yeah, but Synergy 1 uses a local network to connect, whereas Synergy 2 uses the cloud.

Doesnt Synergy 2 use the cloud to report where each other is at and then it establishes a local connection between common networks ? 

[Kelvin Tran]

3 hours ago, CapnJoe said:

Doesnt Synergy 2 use the cloud to report where each other is at and then it establishes a local connection between common networks ? 

You could say that, but if you can't connect to each other, the cloud is still responsible for finding the systems and making that connection. If the cloud can find your systems and connect them, you wouldn't have any problems. Despite that, you would still be heavily relying on the cloud portion to start that.

@Nick Bolton, I think your insight would be valuable here.

[Nick Bolton]

20 hours ago, Kelvin Tran said:

You could say that, but if you can't connect to each other, the cloud is still responsible for finding the systems and making that connection. If the cloud can find your systems and connect them, you wouldn't have any problems. Despite that, you would still be heavily relying on the cloud portion to start that.

@Nick Bolton, I think your insight would be valuable here.

It's not necessarily a case of the cloud finding anything. The cloud is simply a common denominator where local IPs can be shared between your computers. The keyboard and mouse data doesn't actually travel via the cloud with cloud config, only your local IPs.

[Kelvin Tran]

Just now, Nick Bolton said:

It's not necessarily a case of the cloud finding anything. The cloud is simply a common denominator where local IPs can be shared between your computers. The keyboard and mouse data doesn't actually travel via the cloud with cloud config, only your local IPs.

But that connection is still started via the cloud. I get that the cloud is only a common connection point and that the connection is purely local beyond that. However, am I correct in saying that the connection is made using the cloud? Because with what he's saying, I would argue that if the answer to my question is yes, then the cloud still has a bit of relevance here, no matter how miniscule.

Or I could just be flat-out wrong, wouldn't be the first time...