ChrisH

Members
  • Posts

    247
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Posts posted by ChrisH

  1. (with WinXP you don't have to worry about MS having access to your files and watching everything you do)

    That's FUD and you know it.

     

    perhapse I can get you guys to start supporting XP again...

    I recently argued with a computer salesman on this issue and now even he's unsure about selling newer Windows OS's.

     

    Wow. 

     

    Good look getting ANY software developing company to again support an operating system that's been EOL'd by the supplier.
     

    MS only stopped supporting XP because they can't control their users and "it's too much work for them"

    No, they stopped supporting XP because it's THIRTEEN FREAKING YEARS old.

     

    I'll leave the rest of your BS uncommented. Keep using XP and BTSync 1.3 then, nobody's stopping you.

  2. If you are trying to sync live VMs (both source and target) you are bound to fail anyways. No running VM will like it very much if some external program arbitrarily changes blocks (or bytes) on the storage layer.

     

    If the target VM is NOT running it should not matter whether you compare bytes or blocks. You still can't rely on the target being consistent as long as data on the source is changed and synced.

     

    Hyper-V for instance has an extra copy-on-write mechanism for VM replication to make sure that all changes are synced in the correct order. And even there the target VM has to be shut down while replicating.

  3. Ha! No not at all - Sync 1.4 does partial run on XP already, it's just it's UI doesn't. Running it as a service isn't going to magically bring back the UI!

    But chances are not bad, because if the BTSync core runs as a service they will have to create some kind of standalone UI anyway. And what would be better suited than the real web UI the Linux version already has? That way they don't have to build some IPC interface from scratch.

  4.  Even worse, reverting from 1.4.72 back to 1.3.109 required me to uninstall all data and settings on both Linux and Windows, or else 1.3.109 wouldn't launc, which is going to make testing really difficult. I really hope someone has a suggestion or a fix for the LInux and Windows versions.

    There should be a settings.dat.old and a sync.dat.old file which are backups of the 1.3 version config. Just rename them removing the ".old" part and 1.3 should work again.

  5. Yeah, sorry - should have mentioned the OS. It's Windows Server 2012 (not R2).

    I don't think there are any 1.2 clients, but I'll check. There might be 1.3.pre-109 (or whatever the update with the compatibility issue in the release notes was) clients, though.

    But I don't think it even has time to connect to any peer. It's literally "double-click - crash".

  6. is there any documentation on how encrypted secrets work?

     

    There is http://forum.bittorrent.com/topic/25823-generate-encrypted-read-only-secret-without-api-key but I'm not sure if this still works in 1.4.

     

    BTW I was talking about real metal, not vServers (and Windows, not Linux) - but yes, you probably are right about DMA. Still, I trust my hoster enough (and I have never heard about the police using sophisticated stuff like that - usually they just grab the hardware and take it to their overworked tech labs).

  7. I updated my home server to BTSync 1.4 and the app just crashes on startup. I clicked "submit a dump to developers" but then it just crashes again.

    Thankfully I could recover the config files from their .old versions and use the old 1.3.109 exe again. 

     

    Any ideas what to do? I really don't want to wipe the config and recreate all 40 shared folders and their keys and their options (named hosts etc.) by hand...

     

    On my laptop (with only two shared folders) the update went fine, btw.

  8. b.) have a server somewhere with btsync as "always on" device

     

    Option a.) is perfectly fine, option b.) with the current design isn't. Realistically a server in some hosting environment is no "trusted device" in that the server (which you don't own and don't ultimately control) has the same pitfalls as a regular cloud storage service:

     

    The provider can and may look into your files or may even be obliged to do so by law in certain cases. 

    Nobody stops you from renting a root server and putting your own encryption layer on it - that's what I do. My hosting provider would need some very sophisticated procedures (like deep-freezing the RAM modules so the key stays readable when they pull them out) - I don't think that's realistic. It's much easier to e.g. break into my house and plug some spying device into the LAN.

     

    Also, BTSync offers encrypted read only secrets so that hosts store the data only encrypted.