GreatMarko

Yes, this will likely be the cause of your issue! - the timezone itself is less important (BitTorrent Sync converts all file timestamps to UTC for comparison anyway) The issue likely won't be with the time on the remote "read-only" devices, as files/changes on "read-only" devices are essentially "ignored" - I'd double check the clock on all your full-access devices again!

Hmm... that does sound like you've not entered the "read only" secret on Machine B, and used the "full-access" key instead?

BitTorrent Sync monitors files for changes in "real time" - the 10 minute interval that Automatic Coding refers to is simply a "fallback" interval, so should any changes not be picked up in "real time", BitTorrent Sync will automatically rescan folders anyway every 10 minutes. This "fallback" interval isn't currently configurable, but apparently will be in a future update.

Have you also instructed BitTorrent Sync to use this port?

Enable debug logging, and then check the log files!

In short - yes! (also, if BitTorrent Sync has "deleted" some files during the sync process, by default "deleted" files are not actually completely "deleted" - you should be able to find them in the folder's hidden .SyncTrash folder)

That hadn't been posted when I wrote my previous reply! ...plus, the post you link to is pretty misleading, and certainly not "thorough" - for instance, it makes no reference/provides no examples for the use of the "?" wildcard, and also contains erroneous lines like: ...which is incorrect as this will only ignore files named "abc.ext" and NOT "ALL files of type .ext" (which would be *.ext)

Yes, if no direct connection can be made between devices, BitTorrent Sync can use a relay server to establish a connection between your devices.

If your devices are on the same LAN, you could also try setting "lan_encrypt_data" to "false" and "lan_use_tcp" to "true". This can potentially increase the speed of sync on low-end devices due to lower use of CPU Also, check that "rate_limit_local_peers" is set to false (You'll need to restart BitTorrent Sync for these advanced pref changes to take affect)

Is BitTorrent Sync establishing direct, or relayed connections to your other devices? (direct connections would be faster!) - to determine this, if you look in the "Devices" tab, the icon adjacent to each device indicates how it's connected. A two-way arrow denotes a direct connection, a "cloud" icon indicates an indirect (relayed) connection BitTorrent Sync is capable of transferring multiple files simultaneously, so it's a little strange that you're only seeing one at a time appear in the "Transfers" tab. It may be a silly question, but you've not limited the download/upload rate (on the "Preferences" tab) have you? (a value of 0 = no limits)

Are you able to run BitTorrent Sync manually, and it's just that it's not auto-running upon windows startup? ...or are you unable to run it at all?

Ok... two possibilities immediately come to mind if you're only experiencing a "one-way" sync: Firstly, are you sure you gave your friend the "full access" secret, and not just the "read only" secret? If your friend does have the "full access" secret, it may be that there is a firewall wall issue at his end that's blocking his Sync's ability to "send" data.

Yes, essentially, BitTorrent Sync behaves this way: On a device that is "read only"; A ) if you add a file/folder, it won't get replicated back to other devices. B ) If you modify a file/folder, the file/folder won't get modified on other devices. C ) If you delete a file/folder, the file/folder won't get deleted from other devices. D ) If you modify a file/folder it will be overwritten with a copy from other full-access devices, only if/when it is next modified on one of those full-access devices. E ) If you delete a file/folder it will only re-appear, if subsequent changes are made to the corresponding file/folder on another full-access device. ...so in essence, rather than a "read-only" device always being an exact "mirror" of a corresponding full-access device, instead a "read only" sync is about "ignoring" any changes on that "read-only" device.

"read only" is essentially a "one way" sync. So if Device 1 has a "full" secret and Device 2 has a "read-only" secret, any changes (additions / modifications / deletions, etc) made on Device 1 will be mirrored on Device 2, but any changes on Device 2 won't be mirrored back to Device 1

...in addition, upon further investigation, there also appears to be some corruption in the "blurb" at the top of generated .SyncIgnore files: ...which should instead read: ...and it would perhaps be useful also if the differences between these two wildcards was made clear. Most users I'm sure will know how a "*" wildcard symbol works, but probably less will know what a "?" symbol is for! In case anyone is wondering, whereas "*" will match multiple instances of characters, "?" will only match individual instance of characters. So, for example: *.dat would match any .dat file - i.e. "myfile.dat" ?.dat would only match .dat files with a single wildcard character in place of the "?" - i.e. "1.dat", or "a.dat", etc but not "myfile.dat" ??.dat would only match .dat files with a two wildcard characters - i.e. "12.dat", or "ab.dat", etc - but again, not "myfile.dat"

You're right, the wording within .SyncIgnore files could be a little clearer! As you've worked out it's the rules in .SyncIgnore file that's generated in the root of the directory tree you're syncing that is applied to that entire tree. .SyncIgnore files are not generated for each individual sub folder within the tree... but I agree, the wording in the .SyncIgnore file is a little confusing and could certainly be improved!

BitTorrent Sync has today been featured on BBC news http://www.bbc.co.uk...nology-22281941 (I've no idea who this expert "analyst" Chris Green that is quoted in the article is - never heard of him, and he obviously hasn't really grasped what BitTorrent Sync is.. and isn't!)

Preferences -> Advanced -> set "lan_use_tcp" to "true"

I'm not sure if the in-app update feature was ever implemented in 1.0.99, which may be why that's not working for you!? All the latest available builds are available at http://labs.bittorre...ments/sync.html There are several editions available for Linux/NAS devices, although there's no "special" build listed for Synology (which could be because one of the other available Linux editions is fully compatible?). The latest build of BitTorrent Sync is 1.0.116

Actually, thinking about this a little more, cPanel does tend to add a lot of files/folders beginning with a "." character - this may well be in some way the cause of your issue with the particular folder you're trying to sync, as BitTorrent Sync also uses files/folders beginning with a period/dot/point character. When reporting your issue, as outlined above, it may be worth also including a list of file/folder names in the root directory you're trying to add to BitTorrent Sync

Hmmm.. usually a "Destination folder cannot be identified. Would you like to reset ownership?" error can be produced for folders which have been previously sync'd under an older version of BitTorrent Sync and/or under a different "secret" key. Assuming your folder has never been previously sync'd before by SyncApp/BitTorrent Sync, this is likely to be a bug. Please follow the instructions in this topic for reporting it so that it can be investigated futher.

Command line options are presently only available when running BitTorrent Sync on Linux/NAS devices

At present, command line options are only available on Linux/NAS devices. There isn't an "official" way to run BTSync as a Windows service - but this has been requested a number of times in the forum, and there is another thread on this topic here. The developers are aware of this desire! Hopefully the ability to run BTSync as a service will emerge soon, although last I heard there was no specific ETA for this feature.

I'll admit, the idea of "bysync based web sites" is somewhat intriguing - you can potentially do this now, however, in reality these would be more like private "intranet" sites, and would be limited to static content only i.e. html and image files, etc. Dynamically generated content (PHP, Perl, etc), or content that relies on a database queries (i.e. MySQL) wouldn't really work! For example, you wouldn't be able to "host" a Wordpress blog and make this distribute to be locally available to view/use on other devices via BTSync. Firstly, it would require a server, PHP, and MySQL to be installed on each device, but also, BTSync would likely have issues syncing a MySQL database (I guess you could potentially use MySQL replication instead to ensure the database is the same on each device? - assuming devices can see each other outside of BTSync) ...but practically, are end-users really going to want to install a server, PHP, MySQL, and setup MySQL replication on their device just to be able to "view" your BTSync'd website!? Yeah, I think this reason alone will be why true "btsync based web sites" won't get implemented! BitTorrent Sync's purpose is not to mass share content in a similar way to .torrent sites, it's primary purpose is to keep your own data in sync between devices.

These are already present in BitTorrent Sync - variable length secrets are supported, and the "History" tab logs each transfer