dmason
-
Posts
22 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by dmason
-
-
It's not stable yet, but there is the intention to make it public when it is.
That's great news!
-
As for your "frustration" that changes are made to Sync without you personally being informed in advance - please do bear in mind that Sync is currently only in "beta", therefore things - sometimes significant things - can, and will change - often without notice - before Sync leaves Beta and becomes a "stable" product. If you don't like that, well, you probably shouldn't be using "beta" software!
If I get those reasonable patch notes and documentation once it's out of beta I'll be pleased.
-
So... yes! (If you'd read my post):
"Sync 1.2, which will include a whole host of performance improvements over 1.1.x, including, most notably improved transfer speed (in some cases twice that of 1.1.x builds) and lower memory usage (in some cases half that of 1.1.x builds), and there will also be improvements to .SyncIgnore and error handling.... essentially, the focus is on improving the core of Sync first, features will come later"
You wanted information on Sync 1.2 - there it is! Further information on 1.2 has intentionally not been made public yet, and therefore, I am limited in what I'm able to share at this time, as I'd hope you can understand.
So complain about my "lack of information" all you want (but perhaps not in this thread and it's become somewhat off-topic now!), but at least you've got some information on 1.2! - so please just be patient and wait!
- Sync 1.2 will be available to general users in the near future, and then you'll be able to see for yourself the complete changelog!I did read your post and it does have information but AFAIK you're not a developer on the project and just another user posting on this forum.
If you do work on the project please PLEASE be more verbose in the updates and include that information with the software. Bug fixes? List 'em! Performance updates? List 'em! You may _think_ they're unimportant but it would have been really nice to be informed that the encryption was changed from 256-bit to 128-bit for performance sake. Instead I had to learn about it from this forum. Just be open with the changes.
If you're not officially part of the project let me be clear about my frustration. I'm not complaining about your lack of information. I'm complaining about you making it up. I want real information directly from the project.
-
Please see this post
So... no? I was more looking for something from the developer team or someone officially attached to the project.
-
Is there a list of what is likely to be present in 1.2?
-
There are really no more "specific notes" for 1.1.82...
More like there are no notes whatsoever. None from the devs anyway. Even you posting that there have been "bug fixes" is more notes than the ones given. I don't think it's unreasonable to want specifics about software that is marketed as being more privacy and security concious when compared to other services.
I do expect more of a changelog with 1.2 but I also expect explanations about how the software operates and what is patched.
-
Hopefully we'll get more specific notes in the future.
-
I have no idea what the ETA is but I did get a response from the feedback system that this is something they will support. They've been pretty darn quiet about things so I expect 1.2.x to be a big release. I really hope this is something included.
-
Hopefully we'll get more than marketing with a 1.2.x release. They seem to be pretty hard at work on it.
-
Hopefully being mentioned on last week's Security Now will get some more people aware of the importance of it all. FWIW communicating those things to the public is pretty darn important.
-
I get this too. It's super annoying.
-
I've been using one time secrets with friends.
-
I'm irritated that there isn't more information available. I won't get upset about it unless they offer the enterprise solution with the same information being absent. I can daydream about the project going to an open source license but with the enterprise beta signups I have reservations about that ever happening.
-
@jvhaarst Thanks! The only thing I'd change is to use https. Works great!
@nils The entropy thing makes total sense now. I'm still surprised at how quickly it works on OS X. That leads me to believe that it's either better at collecting entropy or somehow cheating. Either way thank you for the explanation.
-
I'm not sure how to do it with the btsync program but here's how I'm getting longer keys in OS X.
$ head -c 1024 /dev/random | base64
Standard output is a pretty darn long base64 string that I have been able to use as a secret for shares. You can adjust the count as necessary. It would be cool if we could get a --generate-super-duper-secret 1024 (in addition to the already available --generate-secret) or something like that.
Edit: For some reason that command on my Linux machines seems to just sit there. Replacing /dev/random with /dev/urandom seems to work fine. I'm unsure as to why it does not work. If anyone knows why please let me know.
-
I never noticed that you could have your own longer keys. Interesting!
-
Seriously, don't do it.
Double serious. Don't do it.
-
This is likely a Raspberry Pi IO issue.
The network port on the Raspberry Pi is essentially a USB to Ethernet adapter. If you have heavy network activity and store the data on a drive connected via USB you will not get great performance. I recently ran btsync on my Pi with a 4TB USB HDD attached for storage. BitTorrent Sync activity reported to be around 1.8-2.5 MB/s with heavy CPU load. For comparison I get around 25 MB/s when using an old PC with Debian and btsync.
-
I'm basically using it as a replacment for a Dropbox for Teams account. I have a Debian Wheezy computer always on and with the x64 build running to emulate the always-on cloud component.
I also use BitTorret sync with friends in conjunction with Samba. This lets us all get content to our OpenELEC Raspberry Pi machines.
-
I may be looking at this the wrong way, but If btsync is a process running under a user on the linux machine I would try to adjust that account's umask to match what you want btsync to create,
-
Having the SyncArchive folder viewable and in every shared directory is going to confuse people who don't know much about computers. Just think of them asking: Why is it there? Can I delete it? Why does it come back when I do?
The beauty of this software is that you don't notice it. Having the SyncArchive folder front and center goes against that.
I also don't like it mixed in with my stuff. I'm really particular about things like that and seeing it just bothers me.
One_Way Sync Issue
in Sync Troubleshooting
Posted
The behavior sounds normal for a read-only share to me.
It sounds like you're looking for a sync-all-changes-except-for-deletion type of share which is neither the full access or read only option in BitTorrent Sync.