j2b

Members
  • Posts

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

j2b's Achievements

Member

Member (2/3)

  1. Another issue, I wanted to find out, what is intended .sync/Archive folder functionality. According to preliminar tests (default BTsync installation on workstation (win) and linux server). i) Folder is synched, and content is 1:1 in all visible folders on both machines. 1. If I delete a file from synched folder on Workstation, it get's deleted from this workstation. And it's not in .sync/Archive folder of the workstation. 2. Looking @ linux server, deleted file is in .sync/Archive folder on linux server and can be recovered. 3. Deleting file on Linux server, the same result - it's not in Linux .sync/Archive, but it is visible in .sync/Archive of worsktation. By this situation, there's no way to recover deleted file from .sync/Archive, without other party's operations. E.g., if I accidentally delete file from workstation, I can not recover it by myself, and have to introduce operator of linux server, to move or copy file back to particular location on linux server, and vice versa. Is this intended behavior? Or there might be a way, to sync .sync/Archive folder too? Latter would allow to recover deleted files by myself. Another question: Does sync_trash_ttl gets synched between devices, or it's per host settings? If it's per host, are there means to centrally control this parameter? Appologies for bringing this up again. It has been discussed here before, including myself http://forum.bittorrent.com/topic/24646-sync-archive-not-working/#entry92432 Yet, are there any changes in this functionality planned, and the question of sync_trash_ttl settings - remain.
  2. GreatMarko, Thank you for reply. I was assuming this, but PR, regarding BTsync as a replacement for DropBox, makes it miss significant parts. Any ways, it might be a feature for business needs in future, if it's achievable at all.
  3. This issue have been discussed from different point of views, but still, it remains. Could it be a case, that BTsync is not useable in such situations? The case: 4 users activey sync one folder with MS Office files, between their computers.A couple of files have a profile, to be changed on frequent basis by any of these 4 users.It is known, that BTSync overwrites files, according to last saved document timestamp. Situation I: User A opens file for edit. Meanwhile, while editing, User B opens the same file on his computer, makes small editions, and saves. After User B edit, User A finishes editing, and saves changes. Result - at best, User B's edits are lost. Situation II: User A opens file for edit, and works for a longer period of time. While User A edits, User B opens file for longer edits too. User A finishes job, saves and closes file, User B does the same, after User A has saved the changes. Result - there's no sign of User's A edits, as User's B edits are the last. To my understanding, BTSync is not the mean to solve such conflicts, and apparently, files have to be copied locally to other folder, for edit. Afterward, moving it back to sync folder. Although, this actually does not solve situations I and II neither. Am I correct? Is there any ways to solve such cases with a help of btsync?
  4. Update on my tests: Initially, I noticed, that actually folders are not being synched, despite fact, that BTsync indicates, that folder is in sync. According to logs, needed to implement firewall settings on server side, and created new test folder. - now, when sync is working, it still partially work for .sync\Archive folder: 1. when I delete or change file on Workstation, it gets uploaded to server, inlcuding changes. 2. when I visit server's .sync\Archive - versions of a files are there. Visiting .sync\Archive folder on Desktop - it's empty Folder security key was created on Workstation, and pasted to Server, if that explains something. Why Arcive folder is populated on Server, but not on workstation, where files are actually changed, and the key was generated?
  5. Sorry for bringing this up, but the same situation here almost a year later. BitTorrent Sync 1.4.83 Beta - both Windows Desktop (8.1) and Ubuntu Server. Both locations and settings define "Store deleted files in folder archive", but after tests and experiments, .sync/Archive folder is still empty in both locations. How would it be possible to troubleshoot this?
  6. j2b

    Sync Api Keys

    Hi, Callum! As aaronliao allready suggested, try to PM him after official request from your filled form (http://www.bittorrent.com/sync/developers). I still have not received new key in my e-mail, but I managed to find the old one (Email search helps in my case ). And as reply to my 2.question was confirmative, I still use formerly sent key. It seems, that something has changed @btsync, and even putting in Q4 e-mail into whitelist, still does not deliver one.
  7. j2b

    Sync Api Keys

    Please pardon me, if I rise this question again (I've noticed forum posts regarding a queue for API key distribution, so I'm patient, but still would like to get some expectations). 1. What's current queue length (expected wait time), to get new API key (registered afternoon 03.07.2014 GMT+2)? 2. Can a Dev use the same API key for several projects, or each project is advised to register separate API keys? (even if dev E-mail address is the same for all projects) 3. Is there any other place, to get/recover or copy API keys, besides e-mail messages? 4. What's the e-mail address, API key is sent from, to enter in Whitelist (for case of SPAM filters)? Appreciate your info...
  8. RomanZ, thank you for reply. A NOTE: In initial description of situation, I indicated, that network firewall (not host-based FW) solution is deployed in both locations. This means, that, there are edge firewalls/router in each location, protecting whole internal networks. So this would not be related to host based FW solution, as noted at the end of paragraph (Windows FW). By phrase - 'firewall friendly', I meant, that each btsync user, who installs it on own computer, should not bother about any firewall settings, as in most cases, outgoing traffic (and initiation) is allowed (not filtered out by network FW). So - 'firewall friendly', would mean, that user installs btsync on his/her computer, and it's ready to go, without any additional requests to IT helpdesk for special configuration on network FW. (this does not relate to corporate networks, where ITs struggle to filter out or at least lower the amount of p2p traffic ) I'd assume, that btsync instance running in one or the other location, is pinging tracker or other nodes for connectivity, thus providing actually opened channel to the internet for sync operations. In such a way, BTsync instance, which is behind corporate network based firewall, initiate connection to internet from within the internal network, and keep it open. So it shouldn't be a problem for statefull firewalls to allow communications (inflows on the same ip:port) afterwards. (If only a node, which is outside corporate network change IP due to roaming or other conditions. But that's another story.) Yes, I'm thinking about the fact, that statefull FW is implemented. Actually there are solutions to enable UPnP configurations on firewall, but that's what I'm trying to avoid, to provide smooth BTsync operations. It's like with FTP, to tighten FW as much as you can, and do not open ports, or allow systems automatically to open such. And I'm trying to understand and avoid potential manual configurations of FW for incoming traffic, or rather block it by default. As I assume, that BTsync instance for local/internet communications in any other ways is useless, if it does not initiate first connections at least to Tracker server, than it might be considered, that first Tracker connection initiation from BTsync instance from internal network would open connection in network firewall as legitime. And as a way of replies, BTsync instances from outside networks can communicate. Would it be correct? (sorry for mess of the phrases, I type, what's on my mind) Sorry for lack of clear description. I've spotted the following: Location A: 1x btsync instance, listening on port (say) 44000, and firewall port 44000 is opened and redirected to this instance. Location B: 3x btsync devices are active, and one of these instances (spotted by swithcing them off one by one) is trying to connect to Location A btsync instance on port 44943 and gets blocked by FW. (no other sync instances in location A are present nor listening on 44943 TCP/UDP) The question is: Why particular (spotted) btsync instance in location B is trying to connect to location A instance on different port, if there are no hashes/instances listening/indicating on such port? Hm (regarding last statement)!?! Such a situation would make BTSync inoperational in most cases, but it's not so. I'm going to test this in a couple of days. Only within the same network or subnet, there might be a situation, where there are no firewalls between BTsync instances, or in other case, on each firewall that would require opening relevant ports, if a user from this network decides to install btsync. I can not give more details on this assumption, but will come back after tests. By now, I still assume, that the benefit of P2P and BTsync is in fact, that connections are opened from within LAN to outside, thus overcomming necessity to configure FW to operate, and such channels are used for data transfer. But this statement obviously then rise a question - why there is such a thing for listening port, configured in btsync, for outside LAN communications purposes? If BTsync initiate connection from LAN to internet, this connection gets random FW port, about which Tracker is informed (as you mention external IP:port), and that would be sufficient to run connection. Listening port might be as additional option to finegrain communications, but it's rather useless for inter LAN communications for basic purposes. Thank you for clarification. This would obviously require network FW configuration in cases, when outgoing traffic is filtered by firewall too.
  9. There are multiple btsync instances (devices) in 2 distinct locations. Each location is protected with network based firewall (UPnP disabled for security reasons in both locations). If I understand correctly, upon device boot (if btsync starts automatically), btsync connects to Tracker server, to inform about device, hashes, current IP and port it's listening. (that's why it is FW friendly). Please correct me if I'm wrong. And thus, all BTsync instances can find each other, if they have to negotiate over internet. Here are a couple of questions and assumptions: - Because BTsync is FW friendly (see above my understanding), it should not be a requirement to introduce any particular firewall settings allowing UDP traffic to come in, and all other instances should get acknowledged on new ports/ip addresses. Q: Why there are btsync instances, which try to hit firewall on particular UDP ports (44943), obviously getting blocked, to get connection, if they should not? (the sync is working correctly any way). - If still, some firewall configurations should be deployed, allowing incoming UDP traffic and port redirection, then there might be a conflict with listening ports, if configured manually. This means, that each btinstance behind teh firewall should be configured manually, looking to not place 2 or more instances on the same listening ports. Thus it might be configured in firewall with UDP and port redirection particularly. I'd obviously try to escape this config, if it is not requirement, to lower burden on management and tracking. Q: Are there still requirements for firewall configurations and should incoming UDP traffic, including port redirection, be deployed, to allow BTsync to run flawlessly? Appreciate your comments and insights on causes, why it's happening. P.S. Actually just noticed, that the same happens to TCP connections too. So it might be related.