ckp

I've been using btsync to sync a large amount of folders and files between my Windows 7 and Mac Yosemite computers, and it has been working just fine. I remember reading horror stories about the new btsync version a while back, so I never upgraded. Currently, I'm wondering if things are better and I'm safe to upgrade? Any reason to upgrade from 1.3.105? Thanks!

Thank you. I have enabled debug logging and used the ui to send what you requested. Hope to hear back soon. Did you receive debug log?

1.3.94 on Win XP SP3 x86. Had a mapped drive set in btsync as a sync folder on Win7. The mapped drive is made logged in as a domain admin user account. No problem so far. Removed that sync folder from the Win7 computer to add it to a XP computer instead, where the same exact windows domain admin user is logged in with the same exact mapped drive. But now when trying to add the mapped drive as a folder in btsync, the following btsync error pops up: "don't have permission to write to the selected folder" However, I can manually copy and delete files just fine in the mapped drive as this user. I can successfully add any subfolder under the mapped drive to btsync. But it won't let me add the mapped drive itself P:\ I also tried the unc convention that i saw used in the btsync log file for the sub folders of the mapped drive, but no luck. Any ideas?

When you are comparing the speed of btsync transfers to your pc-to-pc transfers without btsync, are you using the same exact files to compare the transfer rates? For example, large files may go much quicker than tons of small files. Just my two cents. My btsync transfer speed between two local Windows computers was very quick when I tried it with around 250GB of videos and photos. I only looked at average transfer rates when it was actually sync-ing the files. good question about the indexing speed. i wonder if btsync does any cpu throttling there (like with sleeping), or lets the OS use up as much as it wants? i didn't look.

What are the best low-cost, external, low power network storage devices out there that support btsync and actually work very well? I'm hoping someone who has had long-term success can advise. I think most low-cost storage nas boxes will probably have their power supply and/or drives die within a couple years, which would defeat the purpose of trying to save money by not paying someone like dropbox for storage space. I know a simple custom built computer with nas drives and high quality power supply would be the absolute best device for this, but I'd prefer to just go with a cheap nas box with 2 fat drives in a reliable raid 1 mirror. Thanks!

both OS were Windows (Win 7 and 2008r2). if it happens again, i will checkout debug logging. for now, i'm good, because i just decided to let the whole thing lan sync. thanks!

That is a good option. Another option is to just set your Windows desktop or server to autologin with your user account (you can use microsoft/sysinternals "autologin" tool to set that up) and put a batch file in your user's startup folder to lock the screen. That's what I do because I have several other user specific programs I want to have up all the time without having to run as a service.

I just read about "selective sync". I'm not sure I'm asking for exactly that, but close. I don't even want to download the files from remote btsync computers. I just want to have the ability to access the folders and files without downloading them, even if I double click some document to open it. What I'm asking for is like a mapped drive or something similar to a webdav mapping. If "selective sync" includes this option on top of being able to download specific files you click on, then that is great. Thank you! Can't wait for such a feature!

Well, it indeed seemed to the first time I tried, because the -conflict duplicate folders were created. All the files were exactly the same. Only the top level folders had a different creation time. Anyway, I just let the whole thing sync on my LAN. It transferred quite quickly. If I try the copy method again, I'll make sure to use the robocopy option to preserve the folder timestamps. Using zip/copy/unzip method would take more time than just letting it all sync over.

If you added this one little feature, btsync would be perfect for so many people and small businesses too! If only the btsync client could also just access the folders on other computers without actually needing to consume all the space on every computer. So, my use cases are: 1. access small data sets on every computer and iOS device with sync -> can do it! 2. selectively choose which folders to sync to which computers -> awesome, can do it! 3. access big data folders from some other btsync computer without sync. kind of like a webdav mapped drive access, but more secure using btsync -> can't do it! Don't want to setup something like webdav on computers for this. People would pay money for this. I would! So far, I really love btsync. I only use Dropbox now for very small and critical data that I can access from anywhere even by just a secure web page. Throw a secure browser access as well as webdav-like access to any btsync computer and you've really got something special!

i used robocopy on windows computer A to mirror the 3 top level folders (music, photos, video) to computer B. this seem to cause the top level folder timestamps to change, but the contents mod time matches on both computers. i guess i'll just let btsync sync the two computers 100% from A to B, but it will take a really long time, unless btsync can figure out that they are on the same subnet. computer A is also on a corporate vpn subnet, so if btsync goes through that, it will take forever.

Can I speed up and avoid initial sync between two computers if I copy a large amount of media files to both computers and then add it as a sync folder on computer 1, and then add the key to computer 2? The first time I tried this, each folder that existed in the sync folder on each computer added extra folders with the same name and " - conflict" after them. Maybe my ordering of steps was wrong? Thanks.