baz

Thanks! Going to try now... Worked! I went with this option from the OP on a fresh Ubuntu VPS:

Another vote for #3. Thanks for all your hard work!

I upgraded on iOS today without checking to see if it would allow for sync'ing with 1.4 devices. So I have 2.0 on iPhone all by itself and 1.4 everywhere else until I can get Ubuntu updated to 2.0 as that is a critical sync peer. Was quite content with 1.4 on iOS. Wish they'd be more flexible about downgrading. I really shouldn't have to backup each and every .ipa I care about manually.

Same here. Dead in the water on IOS 8/iPhone 6. App closes when you click add folder.

I think this is why, when I have a single large file to download... btsync is convenient and it plods along at 2.5MB/s. However, if I have a significant amount of smaller files (say... .rar files), I boot up FileZilla and kick-off 10 simultaneous transfers. Each hits between .5-1.5MB/s which roughly maxes out my server's 100mbit NIC. I suppose you're probably right re: having more seeders. For my usage, I am sending direct from my server to my home machine.

Thanks, I will go ahead with the upgrade. So, I read up a bit more on sequential transfers vs the way bittorrent picks randomly/"rarest-first". It seems that while there are definitely benefits to the BT method for a good number of use cases, a direct transfer of numerous large-ish files from one machine to another via BTSync will always be substantially slower than multiple simultaneous SFTP downloads between the same two machines. So for now I'll continue with my process of having automated downloads where speed is not a huge concern go through BTSync, but if there is a group of files I need ASAP, I will manually transfer via FileZilla/SFTP. Is there any way BTSync could eventually be made to write multiple files at once? My thought being that even though it's still not a sequential download, it may be faster than the current single-file method for those with significant bandwidth? My normal torrents seem to behave this way... as I add more .torrents, the overall transfer speed increases until I hit my or my peers bandwidth limits. Appreciate the help/insight.

Honestly, I'd be happy if they even selected a group of security researchers to get an inside look at the way they have this setup. I personally don't have the time to sift through and analyze it myself. I imagine there are plenty of people out there like me who would be perfectly content if we saw security analysis from 4-5 reputable security experts. Steve Gibson is a great start, and he's already requested such a review. Why the hold up? It's starting to make things smell funny.

I just do "rm -rf /tools/btsync/.SyncTrash" (or .SyncArchive in your case) every few days or immediately if I am completely full. If you're not on linux, I imagine you can just dump that folder in the trash and be done with it.

I have a server with 100mbit/100mbit connection and a home downstream connection of 150mbit. When using BTSync, I can't seem to get above 3MB/s no matter what the situation. If I use FileZilla and send the file via SFTP, I see a similar speed when sending a single file. However, if I have multiple files to send and I use FileZilla/SFTP with simultaneous connections enabled, I very easily max out my server and get a constant ~90mbit or so download speed to my home. See attached screenshot. The first portion is BTSync and then when that finished, I loaded up a bunch of files in FileZilla. I love BTSync's flexibility and ease of use, but the speed difference is hard to stomach sometimes. Is there anything that I can do to significantly increase my BTSync speed in the short term? Is there anything like the "simultaneous connections" that SFTP enables planned for BTSync? I thought it already used multiple connections or sent multiple files at once, but from further reading it sounds like thats only if you're sending very small files. Mine are anywhere from 100MB to 25 GB and I only see one ".sync" file being written at a time. I am currently using BTSync version 1.1.26 and could upgrade to the latest, but everything is rock-solid for me other than the speed. So unless that'll get me what I'm looking for, I prefer to hold off on upgrading. My server is an i3 w/ 8GB ram. Home machine is on a high-end i7 with plenty of memory. I don't think either of those are contributing to my issue but figured I'd mention it. I understand that BTSync continues to evolve and this issue may already be identified as something to resolve. I'm just looking for confirmation that it is in fact something that can be fixed/resolved given the way BTSync works or confirmation that BTSync will never be as fast (or even close to as fast) as simultaneous SFTP connections. Thanks BAZ

In my experience, that may not tell you if there is a file queued to be sync'd. It merely tells you there is not one currently sync'ing for that folder. BT Sync could sync a single file in your folder, then go sync a large file in another folder, before coming back to sync another file in the first folder. There would be a period of time where the first folder appears "done" yet more files are coming once the large file is complete to the second directory.. Depending on your file numbers, sizes, connection speed and what you're executing when no .!sync files are detected it might not matter... or you may prematurely delete the folder and thus not sync subsequent files or even delete them from the remote/originating host if a 2-way sync. I've had this bite me already when syncing large HD home movies. My home file processor/mover acted on the first folder because it thought that folder was done when actually there was one additional video from that trips folder that was to be sync'd but BT Sync was working on a video in a folder from another trip. Once the movies in the first folder were processed, my processor/mover deleted it. BT Sync of course then deleted the folder on the other end of the 2-way sync along with ALL the videos... Including the one which had yet to sync! So just be careful with how you implement .

I'd love to test iOS if you still have spots open. Thanks

Thanks! The re-install ended up fixing it for Firefox on Ubuntu. Now I'll get to googling how to create a new safari profile on my mac Edit: Spoke too soon. SSL was working fantastic on my home machine with BitTorrent Sync gui and Firefox, so I attempted to load up my server's gui with SSL and got the same error. Seems like Firefox is complaining that there are two sites using the same certificate (same serial # of 00)?? Has anyone successfully used SSL with multiple Sync web guis in Firefox? I'm sure there must be a security setting I can adjust somewhere to tell Firefox to ignore this?

Ok thx. I'm going to try removing and re-installing Firefox on Ubuntu. If that doesn't help, I'll create a completely new VM and install Firefox there.

Anyone know where I might look to see why I can't seem to connect to the web UI via SSL? In Safari it just hangs, and in Firefox on Ubuntu I get the following when trying to connect to https://192.168.30.95:8888 Secure Connection Failed An error occurred during a connection to 192.168.30.95:8888. You have received an invalid certificate. Please contact the server administrator or email correspondent and give them the following information: Your certificate contains the same serial number as another certificate issued by the certificate authority. Please get a new certificate containing a unique serial number. (Error code: sec_error_reused_issuer_and_serial) Connecting via http (http://192.168.30.95:8888) works just fine.

I believe there is a bug where BitTorrent Sync does not sync files where the timestamp is in the future. Documented in this thread, but please let me know if you need logs.. don't want to hassle with anonymizing them if I don't need to. http://forum.bittorrent.com/topic/19326-sync-doesnt-auto-start-after-unraring-to-sync-folder/ Thanks!

You're spot on... since the file was created and rar'd multiple timezones away, the timestamp is in the future. Thanks for pointing me this way, I'll file a bug report as you suggest.

Do you have ssh access? If not, your provider would need to install/configure it for you. If you have ssh, it's absolutely possible.

Ok, only the most recent file sync'd. So now on my server, I have three files in the sync dir and at home, only one. btsync webui at home (not running webui on server) shows only a single file, sync'd. I looked a bit further on my server and noticed that the two files that did NOT sync, are not showing a file time, only a date.... I'm not sure why one unrar would set the time, but the other two would not. In shot below, two with rectangles did not sync until I touch'd them. Middle one sync'd right away on it's own.

I was doing another test, and this time after approximately 45 minutes (never waited that long before), it started sync'ing. I've read that there's a default 10 minute "auto-scan", but that didn't seem to happen here. Is the default scan for Linux longer because you're counting on the OS to notify you of file changes? I'm going to try some further testing to see if I can repeat this behavior.

On my Ubuntu 12.04 server, if I unrar to my btsync folder, btsync doesn't start the sync. In fact, it seems that no matter how long I wait, it never starts (did a 15 min test just now). However, if I touch the file after it unrars, btsync notices it and immediately syncs it. If I unrar to a different folder and move or copy it to my btsync folder, it begins syncing immediately. I've yet to try unrar'ing one file to the btsync folder, watching it not sync and then later copy a second file to the btsync folder. I wonder if both files will then sync or just the 2nd one. Is this behavior expected? Am I doing something incorrectly? Thanks