• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by coewar

  1. I'm not trying to argue but trying to understand better. As far as my situation, increasing the time is good enough for now. There still seems to be some gap I'm not making here though. If nothing changes on the RW peer, but does change on the RO peer, currently what would happen? Does the change done on the RO peer get essentially "undone" at the next re-scan, assuming no change was done on the RW peer?
  2. Well, it would know simply because it receives notification from the remote instance of Sync on another computer. If you are syncing with the RO option (and especially with Overwrite enabled) then the only thing Sync needs to watch for is changes reported by the source which would be the other computer. When that other computer's Sync tells this Sync that something change, that's when it writes and downloads. So when it receives notification from the remote Sync that files X, Y, and Z have had changes, then it can locally scan just those files, without having to routinely scan them. Hence, it would not need to re-scan the entire directory, and it would only need to scan anything when it gets updates from another Sync instance. Am I missing something still?
  3. @Helen, Why would sync need to scan anything if the share is RO, *and* the option to overwrite files is on?
  4. OK.. so I see there are some challenges knowing if things changed.. however in my case the folder is a READ-ONLY one. So that means that Sync has no need to scan anything at all. It should just act when it receives updates from other instances. Surely that change can be worked on separately.
  5. And it's done. So I guess the problem is that it keeps re-indexing. Why does it need to do this? Is that a bug that wasn't there before? It's kind of a problem because it's a large directory so it pegs the CPU for a while doing this. This is a READ-ONLY sync folder and I have marked it so that it should overwrite all changed files. So even if there is a need to re-index, there should not be for a READ-ONLY folder because the only changes it would have to sync is something from the other sync source. And that other source is actually offline right now. I have it configured so the source server has its sync service turn on for a few hours overnight. This way I can keep a daily snapshot of our data and have it consistent throughout the day, while also not interrupting the source server.
  6. And it's indexing again! No files are changing during this time.
  7. oh my gosh! it's indexing AGAIN! Maybe that's what's going on. I didn't do anything.. no files were synced and I didn't restart it.
  8. You know.. I had just started the service again.. and it indexed in just a few minutes. The initial time it took so long was after it finished syncing... so I wonder if that's related. I'll keep this topic updated.
  9. Hi.. I noticed a couple of things: Service installed on Win2008R2 #1 - the web UI does not open any explorer or anything for the actual folder.. it looks like you intended for it to do that. This has not been working for a few versions now. #2 - I had I think 2.2 maybe? just before the name switch. But after I applied 2.3.8 it's really busy indexing the files and I left it on over 1-2 days and it was still doing it.. CPU usage very high during that time. Previously it was not like this for the same folder. The folder has about 48K files, running about 46GB.
  10. I see. I did set that. And so far it has not corrected itself. I'm going to try to delete the files in question on the receiving side to see if it'll re-send.
  11. Hi. I have a server that I created a READONLY folder on. Then on another server or computer I am syncing using that READONLY key. It seems that if I edit data on the other computer, those files no longer get updated from the master. It seems like this is a missing option in the READONLY mode; whether it should always force (like a mirror) on the target instances, or if it is to allow the target instances to not get their data wiped away... ? The purpose is.. I have a production database that I create a snapshot of.. I actually do it nightly by starting and stopping the btsync service at night for an hour. Then on my other computer I can test all I want.. and the next day I'll have it wiped out with an update from prod again. That is not happening though.
  12. I don't understand has been going on with BTSync Windows app permissions. Back even with ver 1.3 I had difficulties, and now they just are worse with the latest ver of 2.x. I have PC's with an admin account and also a non-admin. I want different folders synced for them.. it has been working fine in 1.3 but I finally thought to try 2. I can't get the thing to run at all without prompting me for an admin PW.. to which I cancel anyway because I want it to run as the restricted user.. and the funny thing is that it then runs that way, but always causes Windows 7 to prompt me. I manually copied the BTSync.exe to the %appdata% folder, changed its ownership.. going to look at what else I can do.. but why does this only happen to BTSync? What is it about this one that causes these permissions problems?? And I have UAC turned OFF! oh... I just figured out a way. I created a Shortcut to the BTSync.exe and pass the /NOINSTALL option and it works.. without prompting! at first I had /BRINGTOFRONT option as I saw it running on my other user.. but I don't want the screen to popup everytime and so of course removing /BRINGTOFRONT seems to not matter and it STILL COMES UP when it starts. But I can live with that one,. oh.. figured that out too.. with the /MINIMIZED option... so why does BTSync LIE about the options? /NOINSTALL and /MINIMIZED aren't even listed. And it seems there is no consistency. I installed this 6 times on different users on Win 7 and 1 on Win 2008 and they are run with different command line options. All today, all with the latest version. BitTorrent Sync 2.2.5 (130)Usage: BTSync.exe [ options ... ]Options: /HELP Print this message /CONFIG <path> Use a configuration file /STORAGE <path> Storage path for identity and license /IDENTITY <user name> Creates user identity /LICENSE <path> Apply owner license /WEBUI Run webui
  13. The BitTorrent stuff and Sync has been fantastic. And from the outside we don't know who's responsible for these decisions. And thank God some of us have started other projects to compete which is what drives to improvements. But the lesson I hope is learned is that you can't release something with such a crutch with the disclaimer that "we'll remove it later". More time should have been taken to release without the crutch. For one thing, you certainly lose credibility and trust from users who never wanted to be crippled.
  14. I think the argument of simplifying the dev process is not the best excuse. It's the same goal that folks like Microsoft have when creating Windows 8. It just does not work for a good product. Each device has its ways of having a UI. Still, a web UI can be made to run clean and fast without all the extra flashy fade-outs and multiple access points to the same thing, etc.
  15. I think it is related to some networking error. However I am still confused why when I enter a Predefined Host, I do not see any attempts on that IP.
  16. So.. I'm watching network traffic.. and I'm sending out to these IP's which I assume are BitTorrent sync servers? and and not getting any response. The server is online and has general internet access.. I'm not blocking anything outbound. So anyway, then I turned off tracking and relay, and then entered a Predefined host I have, then watched... I see NOTHING. No attempts from btsync to access those predefined hosts.
  17. I have 3 servers in simple public networks running BTSync 1.3.109 and happily syncing for a long time. I just put up a 4th.. and the secrets copied from one of the other servers is not causing it to be found or find the others. The server has internet access. I use the Tracker option on all to get it working.. this time nothing.. I then turned on Relay also on one of the folders on the new server and one of the old ones.. waited.. 10 mins.. still nothing. Any clue? Is there some 4 PC limit or something
  18. What are you guys doing? Taking lessons from Google with the UI? I'm not using a damn touch pad!!! Gotta now find the latest 1.3.x to download.. seems like website isn't making it easy to use older version. bug fixes, great.. but what in the world are the THUMB-SIZED buttons and rows for? and the stupid symbols instead of easily understandable text labels on buttons? And the fancy drawing, etc etc.. First off, how "easy" does it have to be anyway? Only someone kind of tech savvy will even want to use BTSync. But none-the-less.. it can still be easy and not stupid big.. as if some genius out there figured out that in order to be easy, it means HUGE FREAKING BUTTONS and everything. At minimum, allow an "Advanced" or "Normal" theme. Google UI on Mail and things like that just turned totally stupid some years ago when they ditched EASILY UNDERSTANDABLE buttons like "ARCHIVE" and "DELETE" with some crazy icons.. more recently replacing EASY and UNIVERSAL symbol for "cancel/close" which is the "X" and now it's some kind of stupid stair case or something? Some college intern calling the shots? ok.. I'm done.. just had to barf up a little. Obviously overall, great system.. but it's just so sad when some UI team gets their hands on things to .. make a statement or something? The whole Windows 8 - like fad with crap colors and no borders and no curves with huge buttons just makes me want to walk away.
  19. We've used BTSync client on Windows for over a year.. updating it very slowly. It has been very reliable. We have a process that pushes files to a subfolder under a synced folder to get distributed. What we have done for a long time is to 'copy' files into a temp folder (still in the synced area), then 'move' the subfolder to rename it, then 'move' the temp folder to rename it to the original name. We do it this way to have an instant switch to the new files and also to make sure if files were removed they don't linger. This has worked very well, throughout versions of BTsync, and even now I think on build 1.3.109 it's working fine. However I have found a problem that causes the sync to break on this particular subfolder and create funny file names like with short names, and for a brief period they'll also be .!sync extensions. Names like this: AU19E3~1.BAT Around the time I noticed this (we had build 1.3.109 running on all servers), I changed the method of our directory push to instead of using: - move folder folder-old - move folder-temp folder - rmdir folder-old I had it do this: - rmdir folder - move folder-temp folder I started seeing funky stuff when this ran and even when I deleted folders manually on all servers. Before waiting for BTSync to finish syncing on all servers, I ran the process and then files started deleting from it! I then tried again, waited for BTSync to report it was done syncing, and tried again. It only took a few more runs for it to mess up again. I reverted back to my original 'move' 'move' 'move' pattern and it's working fine again. Though this time I'm using a temp location that is outside of the synced folder to avoid BTSync from quickly trying to sync the temp folders. Anyway.. it's a very odd thing that might not be easy to test for.. but there is definitely something wrong on how it handles deleting files and replacing files with the same name very quickly.
  20. I did not realize that. Looking into this. I still feel that having a PostSync command would be much easier to use and very powerful. Someone could kick off a script to send an email for example, if someone wanted to be alerted of something, or whatever.. maybe do a disk size check after and then alert, or even do some customized cleaning up of the archive folder. Things that a sys admin could do without breaking into an API development. I don't understand why is there a request for a key?
  21. It would be really really flexible if after BTSync figures out that it has completed syncing a FOLDER let's say, that for that FOLDER you can specify a command to run after the sync completes. A wonderful use would be to maybe run a script that does a GIT ADD/COMMIT/PUSH on the FOLDER after syncing is done. It creates a world of opportunity to handle all sorts of network and peer arrangements that you may not have thought of. And since there is a PostSync, I guess if BTSync scans and figures out that a FOLDER is out of sync, you could have a PreSync action trigger as well. I can't think of what I'd do with that, but that's not the point. Creating useful tools is the point. So with the PostSync action calling a Git script, I could log changes with concrete commits that maybe get pushed out somewhere. Sure there is a chance someone copies files and then adds some more changes after BTSync started syncing, but that's OK.. on the other end it would result in 2 (or more) Git commits right after another.
  22. I have accomplished what I was trying to do using this tool: ( It's very fast and can do realtime sync in a rather flexible way. It does not seem to do block file copying though. My scenario is AWS instances when started spin up with a blank instance store. Those instance stores are faster than the EBS volumes and sometimes even SSD so they are really fast. When it's running, I want to use the instance store for things like development work or whatever. But of course I want it to keep the backup on the EBS volume which is permanent. Optionally, I also wanted to use BTSync so that from let's say the EBS volume, I can also sync with another computer (or two) I have elsewhere. This set up allows me to get up and continue working where I left off with or without a persistent internet connection. Sometimes I might be RDP'ed into an AWS server, sometimes my desktop, sometimes my laptop while sitting in a car or waiting room without internet. So now when I start my AWS instance, by the time I RDP into it, my files are already copied to the blank-slate instance store, and changes to either location I have configured to sync about every 5 seconds. I even sync the .git folder and have tested several actions using Git in one folder and having it appear in the other. The fact that BTSync had bunch of overhead of encryption, etc.. is something that I can imagine being bypassed when it knows it's doing a local sync. No reason why it can't choose the right path based on it being either local or remote.
  23. See here's where the "why would you" comments start coming. If you bring up 'rsync' then heck, I could use that to completely replace BTSync also. But that's not what I want to do. Of course I could use bunch of other tools. But imagine how quick and easy it would be to just use 1 tool.. and I wonder if it's an unnecessary limitation in BTSync created by someone on purpose who simply "didn't think anyone would do that". Because it's a lot nicer to just have BTSync. Add another local folder with the same secret. Bam.. you're done. No need to mess with some other application... not to mention that I'm talking about a Windows system... rsync for Windows is not quite there from what I can see. Besides the point anyway. I guess I should add.. that in the scenario we also use BTSync to sync with other servers elsewhere... in and out of Amazon AWS. So hence.. since a good service like BTSync should not try to guess how it's going to be used, and just focus on doing its job well, superficial limitation like not allowing the same secret on the same server could be avoided. But .. maybe the reason is that doing so adds some complexity and so it just can't handle this now.