overand

Members
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About overand

  • Rank
    New User
  1. New thoughts! I was reading a thread: http://forum.bittorrent.com/topic/19214-trouble-with-rotuer/?p=50004 This seems to indicate that if your firewall / router 'renumbers' your outgoing connections (i.e. source port) that things will 'break' and you'll end up needing to connect through relays. IS THIS MY ISSUE? It may be! I can try disabling the renumbering via my Firewall (pfSense 2.x on both ends, in fact) - but this is Kinda A Problem. Lots of business firewalls do this for security, and no protocols that I've seen from the past 10 years have this sort of 'it doesn't work with re
  2. This is a really interesting idea for static content. Unfortunately, I can't even begin to fathom a way for this to handle dynamic / scripted content - at least not 'server-side' scripted content. Still, a very interesting way to make static websites!
  3. OK folks - "seasoned network administrator" here. I've been hoping to use BTSync to share some business-related files & directories from my employer's systems, to let their clients more easily access some data, etc. But I've run into an 'Unexpected behavior!' I set up the 'server' - Windows 2008 R2 with BTSync, and share the folder. I've also set a custom 'listen port' and performed a MANUAL NAT / port forward. When the client (who is behind NAT and is *not* supporting uPNP) connects, they get a low, low speed of around 50kilobytes/second, even though the client's download pipe is
  4. I'll add my own voice to this: An open source version would be nice and all, but what's far more important? Make BTSync an OPEN PROTOCOL / STANDARD! Keep the "BTSync" application itself propretary (and free), but open up the documentation / design of the BTSync protocol - and let other folks make their own BTSync clients! Of course, this means that there will potentially be interoperability headaches, but this will improve the market penetration of BTSync because the open source folks will be more inclined to use the protocol, and the 'don't care' folks will be GLAD to use the tried-an