Varnagas

Depends. Local server load is the same as remote one's? Bandwidth to WAN is as fast as local? I do have similar situation as well. However in my case it is WAN connections. Peers reside as follows: my workstation and colleague in same LAN, quite limited WAN speedone peer in the same city, fiber speed connectionfew peers in neighbour country, faster connection than usfew other peers in farther country, faster connection as well Issue here is with peer in same city. I added it as a cache to boosts distribution among all peers. Sadly, amazing speeds are not working for us. Neither it gets files from abroad first nor from us. It connects directly to all. Newest client versions, keeping updated, same with all. I suppose in my case it might be some inter-ISP issue. But it is hardly possible. When syncing only to that "local" peer we can get all speed this limited connection offers. So who knows... BT Sync might consider implementing optimising/boosting scripts to route transfers and connection to achieve best share-wide distribution possible based on connected peers. One can hope

You both need to have read-write secret for this to work.

Looks like part of the synced files were deleted. It does not resync when you delete something on read-only side. Might be displayed just like that. Re-add sync folder on read-only side. Should fix that.

I have been using btsync on some of my dropbox subfolders. On pc and android mutually. All issues I recall were related to my mistakes and picasa specifications on saving altered pictures. As Marko said, more than one sync tool will most likely cause troubles. Regardless what tools it is. So before you know a bitterness of sync conflicts of your chosen tools, better keep backups safe.

Indeed very good point.

Hi. While I don't keep mobile data up all the time, and sync app is not kept up all the time, there is no history of any data traces in history on my Xperia. Check your app version, there was fix on this matter some time ago. Maybe you still use earlier version?

Cartman would do it by tweet. http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s17e01-let-go-let-gov On my use cases I do it by adding a folder named by a secret in already syncing folder. Deleted empty folder does not appear in history. Sending by this sync is as secure as sync itself. But that is only my use case already having folder in sync. Or being able to have folder on a flash drive or on a remote drive it is needed on. Other way is by skype to me, but not my own choice. Skype is quite secure in transfer, but history keeping and so on sent secrets makes vulnerable. Physical or remote access to files makes sync folders vulnerable too, so not a huge difference. My wide use cases do not require serious deal of security though. Mainly just serverless transfers and syncing for time efficiency and general simplicity.

Regarding this matter, I suggest to consider following option to address this. By a default upon installation all sync specific files should be manipulated and kept as hidden. Advanced option menu should also get new option to display !sync files as not hidden. Same could be added to .syncingore, archive but only when such usefulness is determined.

Arrows mean direct connection. Cloud means relayed connection. That I found in FAQ or somewhere long ago when I started using sync. This difference probably means your S4 is on mobile connection if it is phone, even if it is in the same house or something. Or if that is normal computer, it is on different network/ISP and direct connection is not achievable at that moment.

trumad, I admire your dignity and feel sorry for your lost files. I hope you a find a way to restore them or a positivism to recollect them and keep them in a smarter way. Been there few times myself. Always my fault. Took a lesson or a few. Do not get too attached to things. And files you can not afford to lose keep tight in size and wide in backups.

Can you confirm that speed is not capped by busy storage devices? By busy CPU used for encryption? By lots of small files? Is indexing completed on both sides? All these can have huge effect on raw speed you look at.

Thanks, my attitude towards sync needs as well it seems

.syncarchive folder If it was deleted only on one node, it have to be moved into that folder. Unless you decided you will never need that and turned it off. Having in mind this is just alpha stage software, decision to disable archive is bad idea at all times. Look for it or have guts to blame yourself...

Thanks for doing this. Looking forward for further battery usage results on new builds. Keep up good work

I hope to help you out here. Sync can be fast compared to cloud solutions because it is direct and immediate. Unlike cloud, it sync to your other machines asap, while cloud wants to get copy first and only then distributes it to other peers. Because of that syncing in the same local network with cloud is waste of time. BT sync allows you to have all the traffic your network or machines can deal with. Even when peers are not in the local network, cloud services (free accounts for sure) limits traffic for you. So if you have quite capable connection, direct traffic is also way faster (and with no delay by cloud) than with any means in the middle. Yet again BT sync aims to give you all the traffic speed your networks and machines allow. Sync won't connect other pcs that don't have sync key to speed up your sync. But it uses relay server (if allowed by settings) to enable (and speed up in this sense) sync, while it may not be possible without it. Relay server is administrated by BTsync team and they tell us they can not see what files are transmitted and they do not store any transmitted data. Does that explain it?

+1. The easier it is to make sync work with no attention, the better.

Disable lan encryption on all seeds. With slower cpus this helps a lot. Try this and let us know how did it went.

Hey Chris I happen to have some experience on the topic over the course of last weekend. For the sake of performance I may point out few things I found out: Adding, re-adding, managing one folder overall is way better "performance" toward use-friendliness. Indexing folders are not simultaneous among separate shared folders. Sync is not simultaneous among share's sub-folders, as it syncs them step-by-step by alphabet (?). Sync is simultaneous among separate shares, so while it may not result in faster sync, changes appear and are distributed more widely per shorted period of time. When lan encryption is off, speeds are higher on slow machines (in the same lan of course). If you have set up where huge file changes happen on sub-share "A" and small files are changed/generated on sub-share "Z" and you need to receive updates of "Z" fast, you won't, as sub-share "A" will have to be synced all the way first and only then will it pick up syncing "Z" after anything in between. So unless you have somewhat similar setup to this example and you wont have to split up one share to more than 5, it might be worth performance-wise. Other than that I'd suggest having just up to 5 shares to manage, better performance on your mind

dont work. it accepts added folder, but wont connect to neither external seeds nor internal original one. tested with 1.1.48

+1 from me too. While I admit this is not so urgent or must have feature, I do wish it were natively implemented into the client. I already use read-only secrets to have additional seeds, caches and backups. And I know very well, that many of those cases be better unreadable for those middlemen, not only unwriteable. I would totally use such feature myself and gladly provide my broadband and storage to provide seeds for my relatives too.

While I really hope this current solution will remain free for personal and even business useage, I also hope BT Sync to have paid features too. So folks can support the project if they choose. And for BT Sync to have some advanced storage-hosting-management tools needed by advanced users, companies. Tools that are essential and well developed for users to be glad to pay for those non-owner-based features. Would gladly subscribe myself for have some gigs of 100% online hosting storage with public links, remote access, maybe even media streaming capabilities. Keep up good work Edit: Server (cloud or whatever that be called) storage could be just as simple as app itself. Simple folders added by very same secrets, reachable by web client, mobile app and if desired - public link. Limited only by storage space. One should be able to add secrets from wherever one desires: public secrets for distributing, friend's share for photos, personal folders for backup, folders to host and whatever one may come up with. Not restricted to local client syncs or other bounds with logins. Would pay

One thing I noticed with non-auto-sync. When you try to reach remote file you do not have locally, it is downloaded and you may use it. While streaming media files and such is not top priority for now, other easy to implement feature popped in my head. Since mobile devices do not have huge storage capabilities for the price, one might not want to keep used files (like photos, videos) for keeping locally. What I suggest is to add another sync option of sub-feature to download files for usage and remove them automatically after set time from downloading it or last time using it. This should also work with read-only and full sync keys (not removing it in other nodes after auto-cache-clearance). Usage example/equivalent - dropbox mobile app and remote access it provides. White it also streams. But for simple use for media files auto clearance would be perfectly enough

Thanks for adding app to Google Play Store - now at least phone app will update automatically! Good work guys

same here. however they are visible in my case. just folder list does not take up all available screen space and list is really small. you can still scroll it and see other folders in that shrunk space.

New build does not seem to appear in auto-update. Also might be just my reading, but I expected new Android version to work with 1.1.27 pc build. Does new pc version works with 1.1.27? Can not test at the moment.