Haravikk

Members
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Haravikk

  • Rank
    Member
  1. I just wanted to bump this. The main culprit appears to be the .journal files; these aren't necessary data (they can be recreated), along with other supporting files that aren't as large. But I'm seeing 400-500mb of changes every few hours being backed up by Time Machine for what are cache files, it's ridiculous that these are stored under Application Support. I've moved them all to ~/Library/Caches instead and used symbolic links, though it remains to be seen if Resillio Sync will actually follow rather than overwrite them. It still annoys the hell out of me that Mac developers still don't put re-creatable files under ~/Library/Caches, it's a very basic and fundamental thing to get right. There are even log files under Application Support; what do you think the ~/Library/Logs folder is for?
  2. Lately I've been noticing that a lot of my Time Machine backups are always around a 1gb or more, even when I haven't done anything that seemed to warrant it; turned out the culprit is Resilio Sync's folder under ~/Library/Application Support. It seems that a large number of the files that are stored here (presumably indexes) are touched fairly often, causing them to be backup up at least two or three times a day, even though nothing in my sync folder(s) has changed. I'd like to propose that indices and other non-crucial files be moved instead to a folder under ~/Library/Caches (which Time Machine ignores), as it should be possible to simply regenerate them if they're invalid. This way files under ~/Library/Application Support can be restricted only to those that are absolutely crucial (i.e- folder key(s), settings etc.).
  3. So Sync is great, but works best when it's got lots of bandwidth available, however, for a portable machine like a laptop it's possible you may end up on a network where downloading large files is frowned upon, such as a public or work WiFi network. Now, I know it's fairly easy to pause Sync, but I sometimes forget, so what I'd really like to be able to do is have Sync automatically start/pause. There are two main mechanisms that I'd like to see: Schedule: Simple mechanism would be to have Sync pause between certain times, such as my working day, with options to apply it to different days (so I could leave weekends unrestricted).Location: This is the more complex, but possibly the more useful, mechanism. Basically Sync would be able to register a list of preferred networks, and will automatically pause when it isn't connected to one of these. So for example I could register my home network, plus any other networks where it's okay for me to download large files. Ideally both of these would be configurable on a per-folder basis, so I could have large folders set to only download when connected to preferred networks, but leave less demanding folders unrestricted so they'll sync anywhere at any time. Automatic pause/unpause of Sync is technically possible via script, and this is much easier for setting a schedule (by simply closing/opening Sync as required), but I think it would be beneficial to see integrated into the Sync app itself, particular as this would give the option of limiting only certain folders, rather than all or nothing.
  4. Oh, maybe you're thinking of the Burn Folders used to write CD/DVDs? I think that's how those work, until you actually write them. Smart Folders are actually just an XML file with a load of stuff that's mostly Finder specific, but in there is a raw query value which is actually just a Spotlight search. The useful thing for BT Sync is that a Spotlight search query can also be watched for changes; so if a program does a search that returns 20 results, but some files are added that match the search, then it'll receive those too so it can perform any relevant updates. This should also include items that are removed from the search, or updated, so BT Sync should still be able to handle all the usual cases and sync them as if it were just one big folder.
  5. Not really. If BT Sync supported Smart Folders directly then it would allow any user to setup a shared folder matching only files from the last two weeks, with a certain tag, of a certain file type and so-on. I'm currently achieving the same thing using hard-links, and to do that I'm using a shell script that creates them from the result of an mdfind search, but it isn't especially pretty. Symlink support would let me do this across volumes, and eliminate some of the headaches of hard-linking, but it wouldn't make it any easier for users who don't know a thing about scripting.
  6. As the title says, I'd really like to see support on OS X for using a Smart Folder as a read-only shared folder in BT Sync, as it would give a huge amount of control over the content that is shared. For those that haven't used them before, Smart Folders are basically just a search in the Finder that is saved as a persistent folder that can be revisited to see results matching that search. For example, I could create a Smart Folder showing all movie files of a certain type, tagged in a certain way, or added since a particular date etc. Working with Smart Folders is fairly simple, as they're actually just XML files (you can open them in TextEdit), and you will see inside there is a RawQuery and SearchScopes (folders to search within) that can be used to perform the same search in Spotlight using its API (or mdfind), either way allowing you to easily grab the contents matching the query so that they can be checked for changes. In fact, both the API and mdfind allow the results of a search to be monitored for changes. This would give an incredible amount of control over what BT Sync shares, without requiring us to first move or copy files into a shared folder (or use hard-links, which are all kinds of tricky to get right). The only caveat is that it should probably be be read-only, as reconciling differences would be a massive pain (and probably destructive). On the receiving side the "contents" of the smart folder would be just like any other regular folder of files, regardless of where the files are being pulled from on the sending side. I expect that there are similar features on other operating systems by now, so support them would be great too, but I'm only familiar with Smart Folders on OS X.
  7. Okay, so Bittorrent Sync is great for synchronising folders across devices, but what I'd really like to do is simply send a file, anywhere on my system, to another person. Is there a way to do this with Bittorrent Sync? I know I can use a shared folder, but this means moving the file(s) to that folder whereas really I'd like to leave them where they are, plus if I were to remove the file from that folder, it could remove it from the recipient's copy of the folder on their end, if they didn't remove it themselves (though in this case they could end up receiving a second copy of the file). Really what I'd like to do is pick a file on my system, and have Bittorrent Sync send it until the recipient has the entire file. How would I go about this? Currently I'm using traditional torrents to do it, but this still requires me to observe when the user at the other end has switched to seeding, get them to contact me, or simply stop sharing after X amount of time. So it's still a bit fiddly for my liking.
  8. I suppose a passcode would make sense for protecting your sync settings and keys/links, but it probably wouldn't be able to protect to the actual sync folders unless it can somehow set permissions to prevent access by file system browsers? I do generally agree that it's a bit of a slim case since you'd have to give your phone to someone you don't trust, or if you have your phone setup without a PIN/gesture on the lock-screen; actually I'm in the latter case, but I use Avast! for Android to set a PIN preventing access to key apps (such as settings, play store etc.) so if someone stole my phone they would have to wipe it completely since they couldn't get access to anything with root permissions, or anything that can force-close apps, enable USB debugging etc. Still, it's not a bad thing to have as an option for the security conscious, though I think it probably is a bit extreme, or rather, if you're worried about the safety of your sync settings, then you probably have bigger concerns for your phone's security. Also, I think we can probably mark the faster startup item as completed; one of the recent updates seems to list my sync folders much more quickly than before, and gives a spinner indicating that they're being re-loaded.
  9. I'm really liking the UI improvements for the Android version of Bittorrent Sync, and it runs nicely, but I have some feedback I'd like to give: Advanced Settings I'd really like to see advanced settings made available for shares, in particular I want to be able to set predefined hosts so I don't need to use a tracker or DHT to locate peers; all my shares go through my NAS which is on 24/7, so I set it as a predefined host on Windows and Mac machines, but I can't on Android (that I can see). Faster Startup Between opening the app and seeing your shares there is still a long delay in which you appear to have no shares at all (as if your settings have been lost). While I can understand that it takes time to reconnect and get status for a share, I don't see why the app shouldn't be able to at least list them with a status of "connecting…" or such. More Control Over When Syncing Occurs The one thing that confuses me with the Android sync app is when it will actually sync; I have it set to open on boot, but I often find that I have to re-open it manually, otherwise I'm not sure if it's actually doing anything. Also, besides the battery saving option we don't have a lot of control over when syncing occurs. For me, I only want Bittorrent Sync to open when I have WiFi enabled; even better I'd love to see an option to restrict Bittorrent Sync to only running when power is connected. I do this for a lot of other apps so that they don't even need to run at all; not that I've had any trouble with Bittorrent Sync and battery life (I haven't noticed any difference at all in fact), but I don't have a data plan for my phone so there's no reason for it to be open at all if I've turned WiFi off. Store Indexes With Folders One complaint I have with Bittorrent Sync is that it stores all indexes on the internal memory, even if they're for a share on the SD card. I'd much rather see Bittorrent Sync use both an internal and an external data/cache directory, and store indexes in the appropriate one. This way if all my shares on the SD card, the Bittorrent Sync only uses up space on the SD card, or the same for internal memory. I know phones are getting larger and larger storage amounts, but more budget devices can still be pretty limited. Besides which, an index servers no purpose if the share it's for isn't connected (i.e - because the SD card is unmounted). I know that internal memory is typically faster, but does that really impact Bittorrent Sync much? Personally I've found the performance of Android's SQLite databases to be great regardless of where they're stored. Anyway, just some things I'd like to see considered in future updates; I'm loving the app in general, and it's my preferred way to sync stuff I need on the go.
  10. Okay, so I have BTSync for Synology DSM, and I was hoping to lower its niceness value as some of the folders I'm sharing seem to spike in activity, and since there's no other way to limit BTSync resource use it can quickly carve a chunk out of my NAS' limited CPU, disrupting other services. Anyway, I know there's a settings file for other headless/web-client distributions of BTSync, but I can't find any settings for the Synology one, besides the basic sync.conf for setting device name, username and password etc. Is there a way to tweak BTSync for Synology's niceness value?
  11. Just as the title says; it'd be nice to have more control over resource usage than simply bandwidth limitations. At the very least we should be able to limit global peers similar to torrents, to reduce the number of simultaneous connections. Personally though I'd prefer the ability to set CPU% and total RAM; even if the limits are only enforced very roughly, Bittorrent Sync is more of a background service so it's important to keep it as un-intrusive as possible, especially on (relatively) slow NAS devices and such which are particularly useful for ensuring constant availability. I know Bittorrent Sync isn't intentionally wasteful or anything, but I'd like more control over how tightly it controls resource use, even if it results in slower speeds. Currently, adding more folders and helping others to share or protect data is entering into the spirit of things, but it will eat up resources a lot more quickly during peak periods.
  12. My biggest wish list item for the mobile app is access to all the same options as the desktop app! I want to be able to set predefined hosts, disable use of a tracker and enable local peer discovery, but can't do any of those things on the Android app (at least as far as I can see). The other most important request is to improve visual feedback when opening the app; currently when I open it the app won't display any of my shared folders/backups at all until connected, which is pretty crummy as it makes it look like the app has been reset every time you open it.
  13. This is something I posted on the wishlist and would very much like as well. While I understand that there are various ways to setup sender-side encryption, this is one of those of things that is just more elegant if it can integrated into the app itself. I like having my synced folders be just normal folders with files that I can just manipulate normally, the best solution I've found for encrypting data in unsecured sync services is to use a banded (backed by multiple smaller files) disk image as this hides any information about its contents and can provide encryption. The only problem is you need scripts or other tools to properly handle mounting of the image and ensuring that only one peer has read/write access while others use a read-only copy, for example, to prevent conflicts that destroy the disk image. I think the idea of store-only key would be ideal. Preferably this would function like a public key, while a read-only or full permissions key will function like the private key. So by giving a peer a store-only key they will receive encrypted chunks with no knowledge of the files they belong to, and simply store these in any reasonably efficient format for quick retrieval. Any peer with a read or read/write key can then request chunks from the store-only peer, and decrypt them before writing to the correct file. One thing I like about the idea is it opens up the possibility of services that, when given a store-only key, will function as peers in your network, without any knowledge of what you're sharing, while only those with read or read/write keys can see anything of the original contents.
  14. Another feature I thought out would be some kind of link for easily sharing a bittorrent sync folder. Some people have started using read-only shared folders to distribute files publicly online, and it's a pretty good idea since it's like a regular torrent but can be updated which is pretty cool. But currently it lacks a one-click sharing mechanism, if a link scheme like magnet URIs could be developed then public sync folders could be added in this way by just clicking a link (if you have a client installed of course). Ideally with a quick menu for choosing sync options.