cubik

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cubik

  1. Thank You Team BitTorrent! I'm just chiming in that while people are complaining about the 10 folder limit, I support it, and for the wrong reason. I am using Sync to retire thousands of dollars of other much less efficient software, primarily SureSync. The 10 folder limit doesn't phase me. I only sync one or two folders with a lot of data in them. Even for personal use, I only sync a picture folder, music, data, 2-3 other folders to get data to a buddy, and a test folder or two, total of 9. I can see how if I needed over 10, then I'm a power user, or a business trying to divvy up shared folders for staff without needing DirectAccess or VPN or some other form of remote access... and this links sites/users better since the data is always available locally. Anyway, a little bit of a loose rant here. Having to subscribe yearly is usually a turn off... time and sales volume will tell. I think you have a great product for a fair price. 19.99/yr would be great, 69/lifetime would be useful way to support once and for all. Looking forward to how Sync continues to evolve.
  2. Thanks for the suggestions - I followed all three at 25/25 and false. It didn't appear to make a difference. I did then add a 2nd peer on another server just to see if it would speed things up having another leg. Still fluctuating, but at approximately 3x the speeds, and for longer duration of burst. I'm happy enough for now. I did check the logs and came across many "status:137 error:<NULL>" entries after a long run of "Piece 44... completes" In-between this, I also completely removed the AppData folder, .sync files from the shared folders, and installed 1.3.109 and rebuilt the syncs. The speed was much more stable, but approximately 1/10th what 1.4.103 could reach for a burst. I control my PFSense firewall with no shaping/qos/snort etc. behind a 100/100mbps WiMax link. I also have direct access to my datacenter techs that say no changes on their end with firewall, and no p2p throttling of any kind for my rack network. 1gbps on that end. I love seeing your billboards around SF. Amazing work. Can't wait to try the Chat tools, and V2 of BTSync. Cheers.
  3. I'm experiencing the same exact issue... weeks of it being fine, 1-3MBps transfers, then with latest version fluctuating from no more than 1-1.5MBps then down to nearly zero... currently staying around 50-100kbps. So strange! Using 1.4.103 between Windows 2008 and Windows 2008 R2. Direct host specified, nothing else checked, no modifications to other settings. Downgrading soon.
  4. We use it to transfer about 1TB/week of ongoing content updates. Files range in size; a few KB to several GB each. It has been a flawless process so far. We used to use FTP, then SureSync (which is pricey and cumbersome) and then driving home in SF noticed a big billboard and discovered Sync. A quick demo later and the team was sold. We now get about 70mbps (out of 100 available) of throughput which is much more than FTP and SureSync could handle. Once data hits a target Sync folder, a scheduled task involving RoboCopy handles the rest (to keep a certain amount of separation between our master library folder and 3rd party software) Highly recommended.
  5. WARNING: hey team just be aware that if you're using .syncignore to exclude files in a case similar to mine, where after I have a successful sync to a media server temp directory, I then MOVE them into a live source folder which then triggers the two-way sync to remove the contents back home, you may have a problem during the upgrade... the entire time my computer was showing the 'update to new version' window, the .syncignore file was being IGNORED which meant all my other folder content was synced up, and MOVED and then DELETED back home. Luckily I have the syncarchive enabled on the home folder... it only happened in between when the update dialogue was on the screen, and when I actually performed the update..... anyone notice this?? be aware, then again, nothing you can do at this point... I highly suggest leaving auto update off and performing them manually in case this happens again. Windows Server 2008 Enterprise 32bit, 1.3.91 > 1.3.94 ps. bitsync is absolutely amazing and I love it!!!
  6. Running into same situation: server A behind pfsense firewall in LA server B behind software firewall in NC Windows 2008 boxes, running 1.2.82 build only port forward is the listening port for each, to each other, TCP/UDP other than default, I have: disk_low_priority = false lan_encrypt_data = false lan_use_tcp = true for folder preferences I have only the 'use predefined hosts' checked with the other ip/port in correctly Is it because a single port is open, and it could use more than one to even things out? I thought it would open more using pnp, but according to a netstat dump, just one port active.