duch
-
Posts
26 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by duch
-
-
-
@RomanZ
Thanks !
-
Here's just one example of how to justify the cost of BT Sync:
- let's say an individual had 2 laptops and a desktop and they want to use a backup service (such as Carbonite)
- on the desktop you could create a folder c:\backups\laptop01 & c:\backups\laptop02
- sync the documents and whichever folders you wanted on each laptop to the appropriate folders
- purchase a Carbonite backup subscription for the desktop
- you now have a Carbonite backup of all 3 systems for the price of 1
Ugliest workflow ever.
-
With the release of 2.0, will this be the last release in the 1.4 branch ?
-
BitTorrent Sync will remain free!
From BitTorrent:
"If tomorrow we want to charge you $100 for 10Kb transferred, stop everything related to the app or try to force you not to use BitTorrent Sync, we just physically can't achieve that!
BitTorrent Sync will work tomorrow exactly like it works today, no matter what we will do. And it will work exactly like today even 10 years from now, of course, if we will have computers in future " (Source)
...and in publicising the start of the "beta" phase on 17 July 2013, the team commented: "And don’t worry. BitTorrent Sync is still free, simple to use, and secure. Pretty awesome, huh?" -
I find it funny that when I first came to this site to see what this software was about, in the FAQ it had a question/answer something like How much does BTSync cost... Their answer being it doesn't cost anything, it's your data we shouldn't charge for us helping you move your data around. Not exact words, but you get my point.
I completely remember this too.
-
No nagging so far appart from the autoupdate windows saying 2.0 is out.
-
The latest version of the 1.4.x branch is currently 1.4.110
Errr ... nope.
Got 1.4.111 popping via auto update about four hours ago on two OSX computers.
-
Way, WAY too expensive + complete broken promise on limitations.
I'll stay on 1.4.111 while I learn SyncThing, test it, and eventually transition everything to it if it's stable enough.
-
The Direct Link is for 1.4.110, not 1.4.111
-
Is it true that there is a 1 gigabyte file limit with a Raspberry Pi as mentioned earlier in this thread?
No. Don't know where that came from.
-
+1 for this feature request
-
@advhound
Also note, that Sync requires around 1Kb of memory per file / folder being synchronized. As RPI is pretty limited in memory (only 512Mb), it means that it will definitely have the limitation of ~500K of files total (that is not counting space necessary for OS to run on your Pi).
Even without accounting for the OS the limit will probably be way lower, on my Pi btsync needs 40 to 50 MB of memory to sync 29k files.
Furthermore the 512 MB of memory of the Pi B or B+ can't be wholy used by system and/or user processes, a fraction of it has to be dedicated to the GPU (which is required in the boot process). The minimum is supposed to be 16 MB but I had trouble with values lower than 32 MB.
-
I agree, that would be really convenient.
-
What do you mean by dock icon ? An app icon in the actual dock or a small icon in the upper tray ?
BT Sync on OS X can start automatically per user when said user open a session.
-
+1 for a .SyncInclude file or any equivalent whitelist mechanism.
-
It's been fixed and works fine (and you could easily have found the information).
-
I'll do a one hour period iostat and report.
Two successive one hour period iostat gave me 80% avg-cpu idle. 12% less than prior to update.
-
Can you post specific CPU usage stats? On my NAS, 1.4 increased CPU usage significantly over 1.3.109. Was there a big improvement with 1.4.93 over the previous 1.4's?
Using iostat, prior to BT Sync update, avg-cpu idle was stable around 68% after 24h. I updated four days ago and iostat now report 74% idle, and it is still (slowly) decreasing. I'll do a one hour period iostat and report.
The btsync process itself is idling between 0.0 and 0.9 % of the Raspberry Pi CPU according to htop, from what I remember 1.3.109 was way higher, around 6-10%.
I went straight from 1.3.109 to 1.4.93, so I can't compare with previous 1.4 releases.
I'm wondering if the lower CPU usage I'm experiencing might be related to the xattrs fix (no matter what I did to prevent the linux box from trying to sync them, they still seemed to trigger some activity).
-
I too switched to 1.4.93 a few days ago as it fixed the port issue. Pretty much the same configuration as travellyan (2 mac desktops, 2 mac laptops, one -cheap- always on linux box, one iPad as a bonus). Around 35 GB of data synced, part backup, part cloud storage and part app preference syncing.
I cleaned every .SyncIgnore of xattrs related stuff on every shared folder of all 5 computers before doing a clean install on the first laptop. It seemed to work fine, so I updated the others.
Everything works, no more xattrs induced headaches, no beef with the interface (I don't get why so many people went completely berserk with it). RAM usage increased slightly on the Linux Box (Raspberry B running Archlinux arm) but idle CPU usage dropped considerably compared to 1.3.109.
-
Unconstructive criticism sux even harder.
-
I upgraded my 1.3.x systems to 1.4.x and soon found out that, while 1.3.x never had let me down, 1.4.x proved to be unreliable. Peers got lost, synchs got stuck. Since I used btsync a.o. for backup purposes I did not have another option than downgrading, the hard way, to 1.3.x on my most critical systems.
Currently the 1.3.x systems are whistling nicely. I have one system that it still running 1.4.x and I use it mostly for testing and submitting bug reports.
Unlike many other users I do not have mental problems with the UI. It's the bugs in the functionality that bug me.
[...]
Once 1.4.x will be as stable as the old 1.3.x I'll probably be more than happy to try again.
The same here, I've got no issues with the UI, but the core functionality seems way too much full of bug and unreliable in 1.4.x, so I'm still on 1.3.109 everywhere.
Regarding UI, I'd actually like the idea of having a real web UI accessible through a browser (like the linux version) on every platform.
-
Hi Dennis.
No problem ignoring finder metadata, the file themselves will sync ok, you just won't sync things like the Tags applied to them.
-
The dot in front of a folder or file name in a Linux / OSx / etc system is used to make it hidden (it won't show up by default on your desktop environnement and using ls without the -a or -A argument on the command line won't display it either).
.DS_Store are files automatically created by OS X to store custom attributes of a folder (icons positions and such). They start with a . so they're hidden on Unix based systems, but they'll show up if the disk is mounted on a Windows system.
Discussion: How Much Would You Pay For A One-Time Fee Version Of Sync 2.0
in Sync General Discussion
Posted
$40