• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About andrewb

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks @RomanZ I'll give this a go in quiet time (on the weekend). PS: are you also @Roman Z because it is the second member that pops up when I start typing your handle?
  2. I have been running sync 1.x on a Centos 5.11 server for a long time (currently 1.4.111 beta), although my Windows PC and Synology NAS run 2.3.x. I have decided to make the leap to sync 2.x on the Linux box to hopefully address a few syncing issues ('Out of Sync'). Help. Q1: What steps to I need to take to upgrade to linux v2.2.6? Are there any special precautions? Q2: will it preserve my current legacy sync folders? I am happy to stay with Standard folder. My setup has remote folders that use Read Only keys, I need to maintain this. Q3: I understand that packages are now available for Linux [RPM based]. Will this find my sync install (/opt/btsync) and upgrade it? Or, can I only do a manual install?
  3. Thanks Helen. Is there a another beta thread on this OR a list of issues? I am not afraid of beta code - started using sync at v1.0.116 . However, I am trying to gauge whether the DS215+ is OK to buy for sync or am I better off staying with an older series using AmardaXP / 37x. Basically, I am concerned about the Armada based ones that are available because they only have 256/512M RAM instead of 1G. I have a lot of files syncing and sync is currently using 240M on my Xeon 3050 Linux box and 218M on myCore i3 Windows 10 PC. Any insight is appreciated.
  4. I am buying a Synology 215+ (Annapurna Labs Alpine AL-212) and it will become me btsync end point. I see in this thread that the sync software for Alpine is in testing. Also, on the Alpine/Alpine4k version can be downloaded. Does this mean it has been released and is now supported?
  5. @RomanZ, I have no explanation for it. Rebooting didn't fix it, but after the most recent patch Tuesday updates and restart it cam good again. Crazy stuff. Whatever stuck it, let it go again.
  6. I have been happily using sync 1.4 on multiple machines, but installed 2.0.105 on one lesser Windows 7 machine to test. One thing that is missing is the sync icon in the notification area of the Windows 7 task bar - I found it useful. In the control panel applet for notification icons, sync is listed - but without an icon, I changed it to be "Show Icon and notifications" and get the message "This notification icon is not currently active". I have looked in sync preferences and can't enable this. Help.
  7. Thanks for the clarification. Is there a thread that discusses this issue?
  8. OK then, I guess I'll wait. Just a thought. Does this only effect 2.0 folders or are 1.4 folders also effected when using sync 2.0.x?
  9. I was thinking of installing 2.0 on my Linux box that currently runs 1.411. The readme (I think) of an earlier version had "Read-only folders are not available " as a known issue. The actual text was "Read-only folders are not available between devices added to "My devices" mesh. We are aware of this limitation and going to fix it in future. For now you can just make a separate identity for your backup PC." This put me off installing since a important PC at the other end uses read-only folders. I can't see mention of this in 2.0.93 or the changelog. Can anyone explain this and confirm if it is fixed.
  10. For Linux (and FreeBSD) the webui is disabled by default for all interfaces except loopback (see link in change log - first message of this thread). This is for increased security. Try running ./btsync --webui.listen to return to behaviour of v1.3. You can set up listen in the config file as well. Consider the security implementation of enabling this.
  11. Has there been a change in the compile for btsync v1..4.xx regarding glib23_i386 vs i386? See this thread. I have Centos 5.9 i386 with glibcc 2.5-107. from btsync 1.1.116 to 1.3.94 I have downloaded and installed the i386 compile (btsync_i386-1.3.94.tar.gz) and this worked fine.from btsync 1.4.72 the same i386 compile would not run and gave an error like:symbol lookup error: /usr/local/bin/btsync/btsync: undefined symbol: _ZNSs4_Rep20_S_empty_rep_storageEThanks to @cjvs on the the 'Btsync 1.4.75 (i386) Crash On Readynas Pro' thread I have got running again by using the glibc23 compile for i386 (btsync_glibc23_i386-1.4.75.tar.gz). Which is why I ask why? - was there a change for 1.4.xx and is this the new way?
  12. On the 1.4.75 (i386) Crash On Readynas Pro thread, @cjvs, on 15 Sept 2014 - 05:10 AM, said: This seems to work OK for my Centos 5.9 i386 install. I have glibc-2.5-107 on that machine and have always used the non glibc23 compile of btsync without a problem. Does this mean the glib23 compile is now needed for glibc >= 2.3. It may explain why @fearedbliss has it running fine on Gentoo x86_64 (he has glibc-2.19-r1).
  13. Thanks - would never have thought to change to the glibc 2.3 version. I can confirm that this works for my Centos 5.9 i386 install.
  14. Also same on older Centos 5.9 As per fearedbliss. I have the following info for my i386 install lddtree output (current 1.4 and older 1.3 versions): #ldd btsync-1.3.94 => (0x003b2000) => /lib/ (0x007c1000) => /lib/ (0x00ccd000) => /lib/ (0x0055c000) => /lib/ (0x00bd8000) => /lib/ (0x00a79000) /lib/ (0x00657000)# ldd btsync-1.4.075 => (0x00605000) => /lib/ (0x007c1000) => /lib/ (0x07660000) => /lib/ (0x00ccd000) => /lib/ (0x0055c000) => /lib/ (0x00bd8000) => /lib/ (0x00a79000) /lib/ (0x00657000)compiler, glibc versions: gcc-4.1.2, glibc-2.5-107uname output: # uname -aLinux 2.6.18-348.4.1.el5 #1 SMP Tue Apr 16 16:02:56 EDT 2013 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux