vw183

As a user I want to be able to group/kathegorize my sync folders so that I get a better overview in the GUI about my sync jobs.

Hi, a rather old feature request but still valid and, I think, useful. This could be implemented as an additional method that redistributes changes on files to all clients from the currently existing sync archive. Think about using files in the local sync archive, extending their filename with the machine name stored in Resilios settings and redistributing it to all other sync clients. Thereby burried changes on files could at least be traced from every machine that is part of the sync. It would be nicer, IMHO, to have the same archive content on all machines but I think this is not so easy to achieve as the archive would have to be re-written in a scenario where e.g. 2 sync partners get isolated from the rest of the flock for some time and then rejoin. Even worse if there would be split-brain-condition. But by adding the machine name to each archived file, resyncing these with all and having relatively close synced times on all clients the burried-change-condition could be resolved by the user.

Hi all, I am planing to use BTSync in an environemnt in the field. We are talking about one machine running as "server" (or data buffer) and about 15 laptops that are all in principle in the same LAN segment. However, since this realy is about being in the field, the connection may be LAN or WiFi and does not have to be stable. This is so since we are a catastrophe releif organisation - so nothing can be considered stable and working all the time. BTSync is perfect for this because we can use 2 or more laptops in a splitt off situation and data still will be synced allthoug there is no server (like with OwnCloud, etc). It is important for us that data is replicated relatively fast (seconds) without flooding the network with traffic. Again, since we are not targeting larger networks: what settings would you choose in this case for the clients? We have about 4 folders that we use to sync portable apps and read only data to the clients from a central data storage (or 2). And we have about 10 folders where each client can publicate his data in (rw with all others). What we found out is that it is tricky to deploy this kind of settings. There is no config file that could be exported and imported. You can use the option to sync all settings for one user - but then your have logged in the same user on each machine wiche does not make sense because every machine is used by a different user. Next, we would like to have the data only one time on the machine. If different users log into the machine after each other every user would produce a copy of the same files which would clutter the hard drive. Anyone an idea how to deploy predefined settings and folders with their keys? Also, when a mission is over we would like to easily remotely clean the machines. This is not that easy if you have the sync archeive settings on on each machine. Any idea how to get the sync archieve cleaned remotely? Unfortunately, the numbering of the sync archeive is not reflecting the same data on each machine. This can lead easily to burried changes. Any ideas/tips welcome! Regards, Marc

As a matter of fact, this also affects ver 1.4.110 on I noticed that you can not use a "read only key" anymore to update one of your keys. You can only update a key with a "read write key". I also do not understand how this makes sense other than => push users to buy the full 2.0 product in wich - I guess - this would work (but I have not tested it yet).

BT Sync team: any news on this topic?

Hi Goli, again: I have not tested what kind of traffic "search on LAN" or "known hosts" produce but I have a sense of understanding it - and that sense most likely is wrong. Note to BT-Team: as you see it would make sense to give a better explanation how both features work precisely since you are aiming for a commercial (datacenter?) use.

Hi Moe, no I have not sniffed. Thanks for that hint - I did not know that it will still broadcast. So then basically there is no difference between "know host list" and "search LAN"?

User story: "As an administrator I would like to be able to export and import key+folder pairs to be able to easily set up replication schemes on different machines." Background: When you set up a more complex sync structure it can be painfull to type in all the keys and set up folders over and over again on multiple machines. An export into a file and import into the tool on another machine would help. It would be even better if BTSync would then ask to set up the folder structure referenced in the file on wich base-path on the new machine. But this could also be done using the local filesystem first.

Yes, you could also work with firewall rules but never the less might it me more effective to restrict on the tools side than working only on the network side. Also, it is handy if you do not have to type in so many numbers.

User story: "As an administrator I want to set up subnets where clients that have access to the subnet are able to sync in this subnet but I don't want to use broadcasting due to security and traffic reasons." Background: In local network use it can make sense to restrict syncing only in a dedicated sub-net (VLAN or VLAN branch) where a DHCP server is assigning IPs to machines joining this network. In this case, it can be cumbersome to define 254 adresses (or even more) to enalbe syncing.

User story: "As a user I need to have access to the keys to be able to set up peer2peer syncing without the availability of the internet" Background: When you are using BTsync in private networks the machines do not necessarily have to have internet access. In this case there is no easy way to get to the keys that you then can type in on the other client like in ver 1.4. I reccomend to implement the "update keys" view as in 1.4.

Hi, User story: "As a user I want to restict the syncing only to a branch of a subnet to further increase the security and reduce traffic on other subnets." Background: In the case that you want to keep syncing of multiple machines in a sub-net local to reduce traffic you would want to switch off DHT and tracker servers. If you use LAN discovery there will still be broadcast messages generated. To remove those you would have to specify a list of predefined hosts. BUT it can well be that those are not known because you still have a DHCP server running and so you do not exactely know the IPs that are given to a new (but allowed to sync) machine. So, in a class C subnet you could work around by listing all IP's from .1 to .254 - however this is quite cumbersome and can be come even unpracticable if you have to use a class B subnet. So, it would be handy if there were wildcards that you could add in the nerwork mask. I was trying to set 192.168.100.*:3838 ; 192.168.100.0:3838 ; 192.168.100.1-254:3838 but sync only happened when I defined the unique IP of the other host. Is there a way to use wildcards in this list?

User story: As an administrator I want to set up an allways online data buffer (e.g. a NAS) where sync data is stored but never decrypted to be able to improve the availability of data to sync to machines that are not online when my computer is online. Notes: yes, this sounds a bit like "private cloud" but it makes sense. Right now you can do this by installing BT Sync on a NAS but then the data is decoded on this machine. Once it is hacked, the data is exposed. Therefore, it should never decode the data, only buffer it.

Hi, could the team give an update if this is taken into account / on the list / in development / rejected?

Hi, I really like e way that BT sync works and how convenient it is to handle it as well as the secure data transfer peer 2 peer. I am working on a desaster relief communications software that is currently based on apache, php, mysql. Looking forward, it would make a lot of sense to use the distributed redundant HW of the 4..10 Laptops instead of a single server. The question I have is: would there be a short term or long term way to use BT sync to databases (type of database is nearly not important because the database would be running on each machine as a local instance). Also, one could consider that data is allways uniquely added to each database with a unique ID so that there would not be changes to existing data or merging of existing data. Any idea how to fo this and what db type to use?

Hi, We. Have tested the access to older versions of office documents, spread over >5 machines. Due to the sync method used there is no "checkout" process and it will happen that document versions have "burried" changes, there are 2 issues with this: A) version numbers do not indicate the same file on all sync clients. This can lead to confusions when cooperating (especially in the same room). not all versions of a saved file are stored local If there would be a configuration switch to just copy all saved versions in a monitored folder to the .syncarchive local changes would also be cept. This might also help to solve issue A).

I think this should be a general service to be configured (enable/disable) for all OS supported.

Option for Block Level Syncing (of open files) I wonder if it would be possible to also include block level synchronisation (including syncing open files). By this it would be possible to sync a virtual machine to another host for backup purposes. I am looking for such a scenario for NGOs IT in the field where a central server is virtualized and a "hot copy" shall be backed up to a second hardware so that it can be started from that one in case the first hardware fails.