jake.sadie

Many years ago I set up a BitTorrent sync as the solution of choice for our research group to sync/backup individual user files to the server. I used a solution similar to the one described here (https://www.8layer8.com/?p=1082) to create config files for each user which pointed to their individual sync directories. The config files would include hard-coded directory keys. Each user would then connect to these folders with their keys in order to simply backup their data onto the server. With the move to Resilio Sync, I haven't seen any documentation around using this method (or something similar) to achieve the same end goal. Has anyone had success in implementing multiple instances for different users on their server?

Hi Helen, Yes, it was related. I was able to get things installed but I still cannot get the service started. Any suggestions? Would you prefer we take this discussion to the other thread?

Hi dh250, I just installed on my raspberry pi and cannot seem to get the service started. can you (or someone else) help explain what you did to get it going after you had your initial trouble? I keep getting an error telling me that No /usr/bin/btsync found running whenever I try to stop/restart the program. Thanks!

womp - problem solved. got rid of that outdated package that came from before I installed using your script. all better!

Hey Moe, Trying to shift over to the official repository after some time and I'm running into some issues moving away from your script. Any chance you can help me out? I deleted all of the files and directories listed in your remove command and set up the repository per the instructions from the blog post you linked, but installing results in the error shown in the image below. I'm trying to hunt down where the bittorrent-sync-pi-sewver 2.2.2 directory might be, but cannot find it... Any help greatly appreciated.

FYI, been using this script since ~2.2.5 and it works great. Thanks!

+1

Just a follow-up for you. I have now installed this on two raspberry pis with non-default usernames and can confirm that taking these steps were necessary for the install to complete successfully: Edit btsync.sh to update to username I want to use to <user>Run btsync.sh to complete installEdit /etc/btsync/config.jsonLine 7: change <user>d to pidLine 7: change /home/pi/.btsync.... to /home/<user>/.btsyncLine 10: updated port number to reflect port number I was previously using (not necessary for everyone)Edit /etc/init.d/btsyncLine 21: change /home/pi/.btsync/data to home/<user>/.btsync/dataLine 25: change /home/pi/.btsync/data/.syncstream to /home/<user>/.btsync/data/.syncstreamLine 41: change db<user>d to dbpidLine 42: change "$db<user>d" to "$dbpid"Line 43: change "Stop<user>ng..." to "Stopping..."Line 49: change db<user>d to dbpidLine 50: change "$db<user>d" to "$dbpid"Line 53: change ...(<user>d $db<user>d)" to ...(pid $dbpid)"Again, not really a big deal to figure out, and thanks so much for doing this! Just so you know, my primary use case is I have two raspberry pis with large HDDs hooked up, one on the west coast where I live and one on the east coast at my mom's place. I have both running as backup servers for my family so there are two places data is backed up. I normally run multiple accounts/processes on each, one per family member. I previously wrote config scripts for each person, left them in the /etc/btsync folder, and the original init.d script back in the alpha/beta days would auto-load each whenever the process started. I'm not sure if this init.d script will do the same. Might be a nice thing to add, though I am guessing it is likely a feature that will help such a smaller user base that you might want to omit it. Just a thought.

Hmmm, so I tried to accomplish this with a new folder pair. Computer A and B are both linked to my Pro License with the same username/key. I made a new advanced folder on computer A, setting it as the owner. It showed up on Computer B, as expected. I connected it, but it is default Owner with R/W access. I want computer B to merely be a backup server. I feel like the Pro version should allow both user-based and device-based access...

I may have missed this long ago, but any way to change a folder from standard to advanced? I was living on 1.4.111 until 2.2 was released. Now I'm trying to update everything and I'd love to take advantage of this feature (I have a Pro license).

installed but init.d script doesn't seem to be working for me? things I changed: I had to change my user name in the script to match my current user name. i changed the config.json to simply change the port number, so there should be no issues there. installed without errors after that point. now running the start command produces the echo output properly, but the service does not actually start. running the status command confirms that the service is not running. any ideas? learning more.... removing the --quiet and -b option from the start-stop-daemon command in the init.d script, i now can produce an error output: " Error while parsing config file: Invalid key 'jaked_file' " My config.json file says jaked_file should be: 'home/pi/.btsync/data/.syncsystem/btsync.pid' which means I have found at least one error. The config.json file needs to auto-update that line to include the proper $BTSYNC_USER if the person installing this changes the user from 'pi'. Manually changing this to '/home/jake/.btsync/data/.syncsystem/btsync.pid' still does not do the trick, unfortunately. Got it. VERY unfortunately, it appears that whenever you wrote the script to swap out the default username 'pi' with the intended username, 'jake' in my case, all of the lines with 'pi' anywhere in them were swapped with 'jake' that means all of the 'pid' variables turned into 'jaked' variables, which i had to change back manually. maybe there is a cleaner way to write the script to swap out from the default user being pi? regardless, thanks so much for writing this and putting it together! very helpful.

Actual poll included. Sorry, didn't realize I had that option when posting the other threads. I'm curious. The $40/year thing still has my blood boiling as well as many other folks. On top of that, the 10 folder limit is simply unacceptable. I've spent 2 years behind this product and I've invested a good bit of money once I figured out 3 or 4 months in that I could really get a lot of mileage out of this if I invested in some more hardware. I did and was happy until now. Now I want to know, how much have others invested?

My argument of 'this is wrong' in response to your defense of this "feature" was as substantive as your defense. You may want 2.0 to be great out of the box to justify your paying for it, but it's just not there. Time to accept it and and start expecting better from the people developing a product many of us have spent hours and hours, literally dollars and dollars, to help configure, provide feedback, and issue bug reports for. For two years.

Cutting to straight to what we all want now... Staff should be responding to these issues. They are silent. I've seen numerous threads in this forum where posters are expressing their dissatisfaction and the mods have actually linked the posters to this thread, so it is clear the mods are aware of the discontent, but we aren't hearing ANY response. Take some action rather than being so spineless.

First off, can you define exactly what the folks behind the scenes were doing to "support" free users before the Pro version came out? From what I can tell, it was bug fixes and responses to forum posts, which is a responsibility that any sensible developer is going to undertake if they actually want their software to reach a large number of people. Also, your 10,000 paid versus 100,000 free is a terrible argument if you consider the fact that *many* people would pay once to have BTSync software rather than do a subscription model. What if you break it down with these three offerings: BTSync-Lite (Free): fairly restricted version of the software, but still gets you more than 10 folders for crying out loudBTSync ($20): unrestricted version with regard to folder limits and other pro features, but no access to 24/7 support or other elements of the pro version that are actually a subscription-based service. Upgrade at will to a newer version but still receive maintenance/bug patches for about a year.BTSync-Pro ($40/year): the Pro version as we know it.Now, let's assume half of the folks here would have thrown the $20 down for the BTSync version I suggest and 10% of them still go with the Pro version. You just bumped yearly revenue by $1M. Use that as incentive to continually improve and produce new versions of the software. If you release major upgrades every 6 months at $20 per release, you might even get some of those 50,000 BTSync users to upgrade and now you've earned yourself another $40/year Pro equivalent revenue. I get that they want to earn money, but their approach is so nonsensical. They have a good product, but it is a Honda Accord, not a Ferrari. If they price their product appropriately, they'll get revenue based on a large numbers of users paying smaller prices rather than a few power users willing to pay the big fee. This is so simple that it is painful to watch them shoot themselves in the feet. This. I am already actively discouraging everyone I speak with from upgrading from 1.4 > 2.0 if they already have BTSync and going a step further by discouraging people new to the idea of cloudless data syncing from using BTSync as their route to that end goal.