You will need a local bitcoind on your Armory computer.
Your local bitcoind is able to connect with a bitcoind blockchain on an other server/NAS in your local network or external server.
Be aware of the security risks!!!
Armory expect your local machine, bitcoind, Armory and connections to be safe, with this settings you undermine this basic principle.
Only advisable if you KNOW what you are doing.
On your local bitcoin.conf:
connect=[IP of bitcoind server]
addnode=127.0.0.1
rpcconnect=[IP of bitcoind server]
whitelist=255.255.255.0
Also set in Armory settings the rpcuser and rpcpassword of the bitcoind server.
Topic: Run Bitcoin Core and Armory on separate computers. (Read 1511 times)
Is Core running?
i'm running arch linux on my laptop and the blockchain grows to much for its ssd. so i moved the complete /.bitcoin (data-)folder to my nas. (a cheap one, a few years old) i told armory to use "/run/user/1000/gvfs/smb-share:server=nas,share=public/blockchain/.bitcoin" as its bitcoin hime dir. armory accepted this setting but it seems that it doesn't do anything. (neither using the blockchain data nor downloading the rest of it.)
where is my fault?
where is my fault?
Hi everyone, does anyone know if it's theoretically possible to run Armory and Bitcoin Core on different computers?
I've seen various people ask this question before based on not wanting to duplicate the blockchain. I'm fine with that, but in my case, I'm running bitcoind and armoryd in a datacenter. I like Armory's watch only feature, allowing me to have the private keys on an offline computer - if Bitcoin Core offers this, it's certainly nowhere near as easy as Armory makes it, and I run my regular wallet through Armory anyway so it kinda makes sense..
...The problem is, I might find after a day or two of running, I SSH in to the VPS to find that either armoryd or bitcoind has been killed because the system ran out of RAM. They don't like co-existing inside the same 4GB server - with no swap. Sucks, I know but I get the idea that's pretty standard for a VPS.
Anyway, I looked at upgrading the RAM. I can double the RAM, but the overall rental cost would work out as more than double. So it's actually cheaper to simply rent two 4GB servers side-by-side, and have a VPN link between them.
I could add a rule to my iptables so that armoryd's connection to 127.0.0.0/8:8333 be transparently redirected to the bitcoind's server, and armoryd wouldn't know any better - that's easy, I know I can do that, and it'd work. But this wouldn't help the problem of the --satoshi-datadir... You can't transparently redirect that through iptables.
Would NFS allow me to work around that? I know nothing about NFS besides its name. Does it sound workable? I'd hate to pay to rent another server only to find that it couldn't be done.
I've seen various people ask this question before based on not wanting to duplicate the blockchain. I'm fine with that, but in my case, I'm running bitcoind and armoryd in a datacenter. I like Armory's watch only feature, allowing me to have the private keys on an offline computer - if Bitcoin Core offers this, it's certainly nowhere near as easy as Armory makes it, and I run my regular wallet through Armory anyway so it kinda makes sense..
...The problem is, I might find after a day or two of running, I SSH in to the VPS to find that either armoryd or bitcoind has been killed because the system ran out of RAM. They don't like co-existing inside the same 4GB server - with no swap. Sucks, I know but I get the idea that's pretty standard for a VPS.
Anyway, I looked at upgrading the RAM. I can double the RAM, but the overall rental cost would work out as more than double. So it's actually cheaper to simply rent two 4GB servers side-by-side, and have a VPN link between them.
I could add a rule to my iptables so that armoryd's connection to 127.0.0.0/8:8333 be transparently redirected to the bitcoind's server, and armoryd wouldn't know any better - that's easy, I know I can do that, and it'd work. But this wouldn't help the problem of the --satoshi-datadir... You can't transparently redirect that through iptables.
Would NFS allow me to work around that? I know nothing about NFS besides its name. Does it sound workable? I'd hate to pay to rent another server only to find that it couldn't be done.
You can store blockchain date anywhere. But Armory require Bitcoin core instance to be local.
So have your blockchain store on your SAN/NAS is fine
AFAIK, this wouldn't work, at least not with the way Armory's set up. You could store and/or read the data on a networked drive but that's it.
Hi everyone, does anyone know if it's theoretically possible to run Armory and Bitcoin Core on different computers?
I've seen various people ask this question before based on not wanting to duplicate the blockchain. I'm fine with that, but in my case, I'm running bitcoind and armoryd in a datacenter. I like Armory's watch only feature, allowing me to have the private keys on an offline computer - if Bitcoin Core offers this, it's certainly nowhere near as easy as Armory makes it, and I run my regular wallet through Armory anyway so it kinda makes sense..
...The problem is, I might find after a day or two of running, I SSH in to the VPS to find that either armoryd or bitcoind has been killed because the system ran out of RAM. They don't like co-existing inside the same 4GB server - with no swap. Sucks, I know but I get the idea that's pretty standard for a VPS.
Anyway, I looked at upgrading the RAM. I can double the RAM, but the overall rental cost would work out as more than double. So it's actually cheaper to simply rent two 4GB servers side-by-side, and have a VPN link between them.
I could add a rule to my iptables so that armoryd's connection to 127.0.0.0/8:8333 be transparently redirected to the bitcoind's server, and armoryd wouldn't know any better - that's easy, I know I can do that, and it'd work. But this wouldn't help the problem of the --satoshi-datadir... You can't transparently redirect that through iptables.
Would NFS allow me to work around that? I know nothing about NFS besides its name. Does it sound workable? I'd hate to pay to rent another server only to find that it couldn't be done.
I've seen various people ask this question before based on not wanting to duplicate the blockchain. I'm fine with that, but in my case, I'm running bitcoind and armoryd in a datacenter. I like Armory's watch only feature, allowing me to have the private keys on an offline computer - if Bitcoin Core offers this, it's certainly nowhere near as easy as Armory makes it, and I run my regular wallet through Armory anyway so it kinda makes sense..
...The problem is, I might find after a day or two of running, I SSH in to the VPS to find that either armoryd or bitcoind has been killed because the system ran out of RAM. They don't like co-existing inside the same 4GB server - with no swap. Sucks, I know but I get the idea that's pretty standard for a VPS.
Anyway, I looked at upgrading the RAM. I can double the RAM, but the overall rental cost would work out as more than double. So it's actually cheaper to simply rent two 4GB servers side-by-side, and have a VPN link between them.
I could add a rule to my iptables so that armoryd's connection to 127.0.0.0/8:8333 be transparently redirected to the bitcoind's server, and armoryd wouldn't know any better - that's easy, I know I can do that, and it'd work. But this wouldn't help the problem of the --satoshi-datadir... You can't transparently redirect that through iptables.
Would NFS allow me to work around that? I know nothing about NFS besides its name. Does it sound workable? I'd hate to pay to rent another server only to find that it couldn't be done.
Jump to: