Tel

Members
  • Posts

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Tel

  1. I have been pushing BTS heavily on customers for close to 2 years, but also pointing out that it is in development. However a year ago I started moving customers away from BTS due to little niggles. They are all now using Goodsync. Whilst it is a paid for product, it's a one time deal. Last night I had the email offering a 25% discount for businesses, however that ship has long sailed. What the team needs to do is charge by volume.Most consumers will be backing up their libraries and probably wouldn't do much more that 100Gb, so 100Gb is free. Then have bands of data, so 200Gb is say $10, 500Gb, $30 1Tb $40 etc (example). I don't think it would be that hard to have volume based accounts.
  2. [sOLVED] For unknown reasons this version is not installing on SBS 2003. It's not doing anything, not starting, nothing. downloaded twice and even used a file that installed on a W8 PC. Are the developers blocking installations on older OS's? 1.2.91 runs fine update: for reasons unknown, when i run the installation from the desktop it fails, however copying the file to another drive allowed the installation. Bit odd, but it's running!!
  3. "has over 1 million active users and had synced over 30 petabytes of data" - how many of those users are still active, and how many of those 30 petabytes of data was files that had to resync because bts randomly deleted entire folders? Maybe the way forward is to deal with the underlying issues with bts rather than pointing out the weaknesses in other syncing programmes
  4. Yep, its been like this for months over lots of versions. It's been heavily commented on, but the issue has yet to go away. The mods will remind you it's still in beta but nothing gets done.
  5. I'm going the opposite way, from BTS to GS. In trials it's apparent that the P2P side of GS doesn't actually do block level syncing so the files are pretty much resent whole for any small change. It's also possible that BTS syncs directly to another device whereas GS has to go via its server and that could be causing a bottleneck. Reason we are dropping BTS is that it's contantly overwritting newer files with old ones. It's highly documented over the last few weeks from different users. Maybe the new release addresses those problems.
  6. I don't have an answer, but what you describe has been happening to one of my clients, whole folders being deleted without reason and not appearing in syncarchive. I think there's serious issues in bts which is why we have dropped it for the time being
  7. I posted the same thing yesterday. Had a call today from the customer that uses bts across 6 laptops and we are abandoning bts. Not only is it missing files it's regularly overwritting newer files with old ones
  8. I saw those links and others, but none of these files have been anywhere near Outlook so hence the query
  9. Customer informed me that a sub folder from H onwards had no files, just folders. I have looked into it, going the lazy way first and looking at the server BTS folder size displayed 11.3GB in 10413 files. I looked at the remote laptop and it shows 11.3Gb in 10416 files. Ahh, they must be synced. However, checking the properties of the files/ folders (excluding bts folders).. Server 9674 files 11.7Gb Laptop 8930 files 10.4Gb As this is a new laptop it should have synced 100% with the server, so why does it say in bts it's 3 files different, but checking the folder properties its 744 files / 1.3Gb different. Even accounting for blocked files, thumbs.db etc, the file difference alone makes it clear that there is a significant difference. Any suggestions to how I can get the missing files to appear without having to do a full resync?
  10. I'm seeing a lot of files ending _Zone.Identifier. I can't find any one else with the same query, and it only appears in the sync folder any idea what they are? Are they safe to delete and resync? 1.1.82, Windows 7 x64, new i3 laptop cheers terry
  11. when you start bts it reindexs and compares to other nodes and syncs the changes, so it does what you're asking automatically
  12. I get it all the time. In the end I remote into all the devices (laptops), kill bts, copy the file(s) out to a local folder, delete the same file / part sync on the rest of the others sync machines, restart bts, let them all figure out its missing then add the file back.
  13. Update, one of the staff finally admitted (several hours later) that she had something on her screen. Seems her computer was infected cryptolocker virus which encrypted all their files on the shared drive.
  14. End user has noticed that all the files he now opens on the shared drive is no longer opening. The backups from the 14th are fine, which coincided with upgrading them to 1.1.82. It's not just recent files, randomly opened one from years ago are also corrupt. docs, xls, pdfs, the lot are all unable to be opened I'm hoping this is an isolated incident but felt it was prudent to alert you all
  15. This is in my syncignore.. .DS_Store .DS_Store? ._* .Spotlight-V100 .Trashes Icon? ehthumbs.db desktop.ini Thumbs.db *~ *.bak ~$* *.tmp *.TMP ~* ~$ And it deals with the office temp files. Notice the ~ before the $, thats the bit that makes the difference. It applies these settings to all the folders so one ignore file does all the folders
  16. Can you advise me if this statement is still true.. "But be aware that BTSync will not compare file dates to establish who has the newest version of a file - it compares the "file added to BTSync" timestamps instead. So you could end up overwriting new with old versions." (23520-how-to-sync-with-a-pre-seeded-directory/ thread #5) This does seem to be closer to the errors I am seeing
  17. I managed to get on the query laptop that has been deleting files. Comparing the file (the one in the screen dump) the only difference between the file was the server one was created on 8 oct and the laptop one was created 1st oct. Therefore since the date modified was the same, and the file size was the same why did sync decide to overwrite the server version which was created a week later? It's very puzzling. clearly something is wrong somewhere in the way it's comparing the files
  18. I have managed to find the user but not verified their clock (which again, shoud be syncing to the same time server). As for the files, all the laptops had to be resynced to a fresh folder with a new secret when the server was installed so in theory they should have exactly the same files as the server. I had a report of a newer file replacing an older one, essentially the one modified on the afternoon of the 8th was replaced with the one that was there previously. There's a lot of entries around the same time / folder but essentially they say.. [2013-10-08 18:47:07] Merge: Local file Suppliers & Sub-Contractors\XXXXXfolder\YYYYYLoads2011.xls is older (1381245473) than remote (1381254308) But why would the remote file show it's older when it's been untouched? Does BTSync look at the date modified or access attributes? i'm wondering if something as innocent as a anti virus scan could be fooling bts into thinking that local file is now newer than the server file? I have attached a new screen dump, if you look at the snapshot times and days you can see the original file at the top, modified during the day, but then it had reverted back by this morning (bottom one)
  19. Seems it's happened again, 4 same folders, but now removed by a different remote user and again, both ends the files (486Mb worth) are in the syncarchive folder
  20. W7 x64, 1.1.69 / 70, all pointing to the same time server. This morning I watched a laptop remove 4 folders off the server for no apparent reason. The history says it was remote peer and the users laptop name, which was actually the same device. As yet I am unable to figure out the reason why since the owner would of had no reason to have deleted these files (and he says he didn't), but also it's the same 4 folders that regularly seem to just disappear, but it got me thinking about folders in the future. So lets say there is laptop A and server B A and B are synced 100%, so A has 20 files, B has 20 files A is off the internet, B has 10 files removed A gets back on the internet and see 10 files are missing. What detemines if it removes the same files on device A or replaces the missing files on device B What if laptop C is then added to the same secret, it's got 0 files so whats from stopping C removing files and foldes from A and B so that A and B are in 100% sync with C A few weeks ago we swapped a server* at a customers and I had a secret running on a folder prior to the installation so their shared folder was already synced. However because there were 2 remote laptops that were disconnected at the time that the server was replaced these caused a lot of folder to be removed (again, no logical reason why). In the end we had to sync 17Gb from 0 on a new secret to ensure nothing was missed, but we / they are still getting files that are doing odd things because they are not connected 100% of the time. I fear this question /faq has been covered before, but as the forum is just back up and I could do with knowing as they are asking for answers other than 'its in development' Thanks Terry * we know it's beta and run hourly snapshots until the software is RC but the benefits are worth the pain. ps, I forgot to add, the computer that removed the files from the server didn't have the missing files in their recycle bin, but they were in syncarchive which means that another device deleted then, but if thats the case, why didn't the other device remove them off the server since the server is on all the time but the laptops only appear during working hours.
  21. Synced files are being deleted (Can't make a new topic) all 1.1.69, all Windows, all looking at same time server The remote laptops are syncing to the server, but we are getting a lot of CloseHandles: Cannot create a file when that file already exists, but now, here's one that more worrying,.. Laptop 1 syncs a file down to the server Laptop 2 deletes that file for no obvious reason or Laptop 1 finish's downloading a file Laptop 1 fails syncing of same file, Hash:the system cannot find the file specified Laptop 2 deletes that file Laptop 1 entry now says ReadFromDisk: The system cannot find the file specified We are worried that a lot of files will not be synced. I have checked and no one is manually deleting or edit the sync files
  22. I know if I 'remote desktop' into a server as 'session1' (remote desktop rather than from the console / main screen), bts has been known to create some little oddities within the syncs. For sometime I was setting up bts on RDP but those changes didn't follow through to the console unless I shutdown / restarted bts. If your scenario is a master / slave USB set up, robocopy with the /mir switch as a scheduled task would be the best way to go. If your bothered by seeing a command screen appearing, you can create an account for it to run the task under, then you don't see it running. If you can't make the task without adding a password, and you don't want to add a password, go.. gpedit.msc expand.. computer configuration, windows settings, security settings, local policies, security options. disable - accounts: limit local account use of blank passwords to console logon only
  23. Im getting a lot of these errors too. All windows devices (6 devices all looking at the same folder / secret) are running 1.1.69, all have time syncing SW all looking at the same time server. In all cases, it seems that the file was sucessfully downloaded by another device, then when the last node tries to finish the file and rename the .!sync file to its true extension the file already exists. When it gets really bad I do a search and delete all the sync files. It's possible that the end points broadband speed may play a part as 'David' connection is really slow, whereas 'Howard' is really quick. I wonder is Howard is finishing off the file while David is catching up, then BTS discovers it's already been synced as David sends the last segment (I think your calling it a hash)
  24. I have seen a lot of these bans on my logs, usually following a file that was in use so wasn't able to be synced. Wish the SW was clever enough to try x times and then wait for say 10 minutes and then try once every 10 minutes until the file is sucessfully synced.