lolcat

Making a drobo app for bittorrent sync should be minimal amounts of work. And installing it manually on drobo should take no more than a few minutes.

How much ram is it using? My freeBSD box has a share containing somewhere between 2 and 3 million files. It stopped at 1.44m files, and has been using something like 6-700M ram ever since. Have you considered adding some/more swap?

Why would you use BTSync for this? rsync would do just fine, wouldn't it? You could run two instances running on different ports, but why would you? There are better tools for the job. BTSync is properitary, so it would be a bad option if avoiding that is a goal. Rsync is open-source.

I don't understand what you are asking, please clarify. BTSync can sync multiple folders with different users. BTSync can sync different folders to different people. BTSync can sync one folder per user.

It appears BTSync stops indexing after 1446880 files. Is this a known bug or? It uses CPU and it says indexing, but now new files are added (the folder contains like 2 million tiny files).

If you are on linux or is capable of installing a ssh-client on your computer, then setting up BTSync would be trivial and I would help you. If you can't set up ssh on your computer, then I suggest getting someone to do it for you.

BTSync has some cloud option to break through firewalls, no idea how it works. The name Bittorrent Sync doesn't provide a clue? It uses the ports you ask it to, it detects peers through local peer discovery, DHT, and through the tracker. It uses a (possibly somewhat modified) Bittorrent protocoll. It uses the port you tell it to.

How this is done is fairly interessting, if you could manipulate the database to add and remove files that would be pretty baad.

Do you have SSH access to it?

Seeding an updated version will UPDATE the files...

1) Bittorrent Sync is not a backup program, why don't you use backup software instead? 2) http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/bittorrent-sync-app-review/ Just add the folder that the images goes into. Or google, it shows thousands of tutorials other than the one I listed.

Yes, they can't change the share, but they can seed any changes that has been made with a read-write secret.

Oh, I do appologize. You find that by clicking the gear icon under "Secret/QR" next to the "X" in the "Sharing" column. Then you press advanced. If you can't find these I can attach some screenshots. I am sorry I am blunt, I am from the north and drink far too much coffee. I still don't understand why the files on a read-only node would be changed, but I am sure it makes perfect sense. So let me know if you can't find it and Ill make screenshots. I am pretty sure you are wrong here. The read-only can't seed the files? It can't update the database? Either way it sounds like a bug...

This is the wishlist thread, not a support thread. Also, drobo is linux, so if you have ssh access you can do that.

"This is a folder with read only permissions. Modifications made in such a folder will not be displayed on other devices." I don't see how this doesn't conflict with restoring original versions. But I will setup some test nodes to test the behavior. Now I got a little curious what it does. I see two possibilities: 1) revert any changes I do locally 2) revert any changes anyone else does.

UPNP has nothing to do with peer exchange. It is a miserable system to manage port forwarding with NATs. I would think DHT and local peer exchange is less suitable for mobile devices. DHT is supposed to be broadcasted to every 15 minutes, local peer exchange every 5 minutes. I wouldn't want my mobile device to waste cycles on sending out that info that often. Besides I would rather have the phone connect to the peers than the other way around (bandwidth saving). If you have the IP of at least one node then it can be used, so there is no need for the tracker for 5 people. If you could add the IP of one node to the iPhone/android app then it would work. I would find it usefull if I could specify a list of prioritized peers for my phone, most likley it will be able to saturate its internet connection by just connecting to my VPS or my fileserver. Using bandwidth on probing other peers is pointless.

The precense of a NAS does not making it centralized. It is still P2P if whenever peers come up they can share it between eachother. That is the important part of P2P, every single node can share what they have with every single other node. BTSync has as I mentioned a few problems, and no cross seeding (unless you make hundreds of shares that contain limited amounts of data, but that is pretty unmanagable. Logging availibility seems fairly simple and reasonable. The function to calculate avilibility at any given time doesn't seem too usefull, but rating the peers and grouping them would make sense. Some user input should be allowed (metadata like ISP, location and bandwidth would be usefull). Then you can avoid your share being distributed on twelve nodes using the same internet connection. It also seems pointless to use bad nodes as encrypted read-only nodes, uploading more than they can upload is just a waste of bandwidth (ADSL connections can have terrible upload, but decent download).

1) It is weird indeed. A workaround could be to do the port fowarding manually. Sadly I haven't had the misfortune of using a NAT at home, and since the UPnP was bugging my television I disabled it. From the logs it appeared it tried pretty frequently to connect to open ports. 2) He only has to disable DHCP on the wireless router and connect it to the other router using one of the other ports than the "WAN" port. He does not need to buy any new hardware.

Issue 1: Stop restarting your mdem, if it needs to be restarted to handle its usual load you have two possibilities: a) RMA it as its clearly defective buy a modem that can handle your use. If you use pptoe I would suggest setting up box with pfsense to act as a modem, then use unmanaged switches and wireless access points after it. Issue 2: Tell your client that using two NATs is terrible, and to disable DHCP on his wireless router, and use it as a wireless access point.

Gbit == 125MB/sec. 1000 bit == 125 Bytes.

When does it freeze? while indexing? While seeding? while downloading? How much ram do you have? How is the CPU use?

I would suggest that you make one folder for each photographer. That way John wont't mess up Mary's photoes. Also as mentioned, make new folders for every day, the version control in BTSync is mediocre at best.

You want a read-only node to add files? Do I have to say more?

I agree that every file should be encrypted with its own key, mainly because that makes nested shares possible, and makes adding features simple. The two factor authentication is just dumb. If you belive the secrets can be guessed, how can you trust AES? Guessing the secret is not an issue, someone deriving the secret through something the client leaks, or through some error in the software is an issue. Adding a password would do nothing for security, but make it harder to use. It makes no sense. The ability to whitelist hosts seems sensible, that way you can seed only to those you care about, especially usefull if nested shares is implemented and someone shares part of your share with the world.

I agree so much to this sentiment. BTSync is not done, and I am afraid fun features will be paid features. What you are looking for looks more like a P2P storage solution, I am looking into the possibility of making such a system, after all it should be quite simple to create. To have bittorrent to distribute files per request would be brilliant. Simply download a small database containing torrents, and file structures, and encryption keys, then you either download a folder automagically, or a file per request. To make a better, and more functional BTSync would require very little, most of the software is allready there. FTP is not P2P, a webserver is not P2P. To setup a centralized system would be a completly different thing. To make the BTSync client have these features would require little to nothing by the BTSync staff, simply open up the API (then someone will write their own client), or add it to the normal client. BTSync unfortunatly lacks the features to make it P2P, yes it is distributed, but they can't cross share, so it is more of a node to node system. For big files I would prefer the bitorrent protocoll over FTP, for many small files I would prefer the bitorrent protocoll.