2disbetter

So the question is: do sub folders count as folders under this 10 folder limit. If they don't then I really don't understand all the frustration over the 10 folder limit. Under DropBox (for example) you get one folder that you have to add stuff too. Under the free version of BT Sync you get 10 and they can all be anywhere you want, and include existing folders. Of course if sub folders count, then I completely understand this thread. 2d

Urza, no disrespect, but you're not in any position to make that claim. What qualifies your comments? Do you have the legal policies qualifying your claims? Do you understand the inner workings of encryption and cryptography? Have you reversed engineered Sync's executable? Within the constraints of the law BT have made claims according to the steps they have taken. I'm not claiming I blindly except this, but I'm also not flamboyantly disregarding it. On the other hand what steps if ANY have any of the open sources package you use for file synchronization gone through to also make a similar claim? My guess is that BT is more than qualified to make the claim. 2d

I think you might be reading into my comments being based on your comments a little too much. You are content with Syncthing. That doesn't make it equal to BT Sync. 2d 2d

And this gentlemen is the crux of it. While I totally get the issue everyone has with BT, there just isn't anything else out on the market that comes anywhere close to what Sync offers. From a technology standpoint it is a triumph of software engineering. File synchronization is a very complex subject (I really admired the engineering that makes dropbox work as well, it's also top notch.) It really is unfortunate that such a feat has to be mired by less than savory business tactics. I sincerely hope that this impasse (I'm referring to the trust issue) is fixed for those leaving for other solutions, because it would be a shame to allow such a thing to keep Sync from flourishing. 2d

Maybe because ViceVersa Pro is a shadow of what BT Sync is? (Don't get me wrong, it looks great.) It is only syncing to a source. Their is no NAS client, and for that matter the only OS supported is windows based. This means no mobile clients either. VVPro also does not appear to offer block level file sync which is important when dealing with extremely large files. Remote access, etc. is possible but will require manual port forwarding and rules. (and leaves the encryption and authentication completely up to the individual) This also does not support automatic client discovery on like networks. That all said it looks like you can get pretty detailed with setting up batch jobs, etc on VVPro, it however is more akin to GoodSync or other programs like that. While they can be configured to approximate most dropbox like services they are in no way direct plug and play alternatives in the way that BT Sync is. 2d

Currently you cannot. (I asked this question earlier.) There is a method for deleting devices in the future. For now after 30 days of inactivity they are said to come off on their own. 2d

With regards to Amazon: I was merely pointing out that your argument seemed rather arbitrary given the constraints of even traditional centralized cloud sync. At the end of the day you are of course right. If the EC2 server ever went down we would probably never even notice. This is one reason Dropbox uses them instead of creating their own. One other important difference though between dropbox and bt sync is that you control the hardware, it resides only where you want it to. This means it's private and always under your control. With services like DropBox you're told that your files are encrypted but the exact details and transparency to see this in effect are a different matter. (Granted I've never asked for proof from DropBox) The main point here is that there are trade offs with each solution. Based on the number of clients you have hardware failure is a moot point, and based on the number of clients the inability to sync because of missing peers is also reduced. With regards to how BT Sync works on a NAS. You can configure it. If you don't want it syncing a folder you simply disconnect it. However Sync All is always on for any folder connected on a NAS, so you can't selectively sync files in a folder. It works for me as intended, but I can see it missing features some way want. My guess is that the NAS client will one day be indistinguishable from the desktop clients. 2d

So you don't like it. Your problem is not mine. I think from a technical standpoint BT Sync is an ingenious method to sync items. It's main advantage is speed. For me this is a huge plus as I have several large files that take forever on cloud services today despite my relatively good broadband connection. Do I wish there wasn't a subscription fee? You bet! I would love to pay triple to quadruple the current annual rate and pay for updates as they are made available. I stay because of the technology behind BT Sync. Nothing else competes in the speed realm. I have many computers that span more than one network, so the problems with downtime and missing computers to sync with don't apply to me. I also employ a NAS which takes my peer to peer sync and turns it into a hybrid of peer to peer and centralized storage. We get your disappointed and justifiably so, but at some point you need to either walk away or stick around and stop complaining. Otherwise you're just trolling. 2d

You know if Amazon's server ever goes down, you'll be without your dropbox files then as well.

Besides what Trevelyan said BT Sync will do what you want. Right now there are a few missing features on the client that will make knowing if a game asset has been synced and is thus free to be worked on difficult to discern. My hope is that some sort of sync status clarification embedded within explorer will be made available sometime in the future as well as an indication through the taskbar icon. Back to your original question though, I want to reiterate that BT Sync will work, and furthermore is probably the most ideal solution currently available. I say this based on the premise of speed. Since it sounds like there will only be 2 clients (you and your friend) it is probably a moot point, but should your network of collaborators increase, you will see added speed benefits similar to downloading a file from more then one seed using bit torrent. This is a handicap services like Dropbox (and any other central storage type sync service) just can't offer. Of course if your download speed is saturated it wont matter, and services like Dropbox, etc. can usually saturate those speeds (thanks to Amazon's servers). Within a LAN this advantage can really be seen. The other advantage in your case is that you don't have any sensitive IP on a 3rd party server. As soon as BT Sync adds some client convenience features it will really be one of the most ideal syncing solution on the market IMHO. 2d

Not real familiar with ReadyNAS but that is probably the source of your problem. You'll need to configure root access at that level through it. However, is there a reason you are doing all this through the shell instead of the GUI in a browser? (This question may expose more of my ignorance on ReadyNAS devices.) 2d

Do you have any other clients you can manual get a key from? This is how I had to do it. Manually link a device by going to the My devices under options on a desktop or mobile client. Then click on link a device. This will show you a code, but at the bottom will be a link for a manual link. Click this and you'll see a normal string code that you can copy and paste into the NAS client. Once it has linked the client on the NAS it will tell you that you are a pro user and show your account details. 2d

Thanks once again Roman. The 30 day window should get rid of the duplicates in due course. Glad to hear a mechanism is being introduced to force deletion of devices earlier. 2d

Impossible, as the device I'm trying to remove was an intense of Sync on a NAS that was overwritten. Every time I installed a newer version it forced me to reconfigure everything and in turn registered another device of the same name. So I currently have 3 of these devices listed. Kind of annoying and I hope a feature is given to just remove a device from any client in the future. Is there no work around? A file that can edited somewhere? 2d

Within the client and/or in the notification icon could there be some kind of visual indication that syncing is current and complete? Perhaps the sync icon could turn green, or the status section could read in-sync or something along those lines. It would be also nice if there was someway that the time left on syncs could be stretched to encompass the entire sync of that folder and not just the current file being synced. On folders with several large files the current implementation does very little in giving the user an idea of sync completion. Thanks for a great product and keep up the great work! 2d

As the subject says, I'm curious if there is a way to remove devices from the device list? Do I need to edit a text file, or is there a way through the UI? 2d

@AzimutTheUt 2.0.105 for Synology and other NASes are available now on our Help Center. RomanZ thank you for the responses. I just checked on QNAP NASs and still only seeing the .93 release. Do you guys have a link 105 that we can get from you all, or will QNAP be updating their repository soon? Thanks again! 2d

Sync is working on my QNAP TS-231 albeit with slow transfer speeds. (1-5mb/s) 2d

I'm happy to report that the 105 update seems to have opened the flood gates on PC transfer speeds. (seeing average of 60-100mb/s) If we can just see some improvement on the NAS front this would be perfect. (Still only seeing 1-5mb/s there.) 2d

Seriously need some help with this. Speed is the one reason I can't fully use sync and am not telling every living person I know about it. If I can just get the speeds up to LAN levels (I hope to be able to see 50-100mb/s from my NAS and PCs.). 2d

Do we have NAS builds for this? THe place I'd like to see the biggest improvements would be on NAS's. BT Sync with a centralized NAS environment is seriously the best of both worlds! 2d

Really looking for some insight here. Anyone have any ideas? 2d

I would suggest, getting one of your computers complete with all the images you want. That is make it so that either you or your wife's computer has everything in the folder that you would want on both computers. Then disconnect the folders in BT Sync on both computers. Then delete completely the contents of the folder on the computer you didn't make complete. Then reconnect the two folders in BT Sync on both computers, and ensure sync all is checked on both computers clients. I think this should accomplish what you are seeking to do. 2d

From what I can gather none of my clients ever exceed 25mb/s when dealing with clients on the same LAN based network. Three clients are on the same network (1gb wired connections). Individually they transfer files at speeds well over 85mb/s. (using file transfers in explorer for example) What is the bottle neck here? Why is BT Sync not attempting to saturate ethernet bandwidth? Is there something I can do to tell the clients to take advantage of as much bandwidth as is available? I sync several very large files very often, and this use of barely a quarter of my internal network speed is a real drag. 2d Edit: I've fleshed this question out to be a little more of a question instead of an observation.

Upon further investigation it appears to be moving files that haven't been deleted into the archive. These files are still necessary to the VM. I'm not sure why this is occuring, but I turned off the archive feature, and I'm hoping this may correct the problem. Thoughts woudl be great. 2d It's a mess. It seems to be the archive feature indeed. But something is trigging it to archive files that aren't deleted. I almost feel life the file lock workstation starts when you open workstation and are looking at the VM is causing sync to think the files are deleted when they aren't. This is a pretty serious bug as it's crippling my VM files. If I can't get this resolved I'm going to have to drop BT Sync. (Which I REALLY don't want to do) 2d