jalcide

New Members
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jalcide

  • Rank
    New User
  1. Over a week and It never moved past 1% and never finished. I've had to switch to a different sync solution (out of respect, I won't name it here). The sync of 532GB (the differences) took 14 minutes. Done. So there was nothing wrong with my LAN.
  2. I've been attempting to sync around 532GB over a Gigabit LAN for about a week and it still shows 1%. The "days left" seems to fluctuate between 2 and 4 days (always, for days now). With the number of days trending downward. One would think this would obligate the percent progress to increase, even if only to 2% Transfer rate hovers around 1.2 MB/s. Windows 7 on both PCs. Sync version 2.0.105 on both. They're being synced as 1.4 style folders. Is the progress status in Sync 2.0 reasonably accurate? Why is it taking so long? 1.2 MB/s (if that is accurate) seems very low for small GBit LAN with short CAT 6 cable and two machines essentially dedicated to the sync (neither machine is my main workstation). I thought this thing was built on BitTorrent. Also, is there a way to see which files are in progress? And what's the deal with "History"? It seems to be days behind. Why isn't that a real-time display of what is transferring. At the slow speed it's going, it seems to have plenty of overhead for such things. Good golly this software is maddening. Any thoughts appreciated.
  3. BTSync.exe stays steady around 20% CPU utilization, but the system acts and feels like it's > 90%. The Sync UI takes about 5 minutes to open from its notification icon. Once open, the UI is extremely unresponsive and shows "(Not Responding)" in the title bar about every 30 seconds and seems to re-instantiate itself in an endless cycle. It's simply trying to sync one folder (read only) from one computer. The transfer speed stays mostly steady at about 1 MB/s (which seems on the slow side). 2.0.105, Windows 7 x64, AMD Phenom II 6 core, 16 GB RAM, SSD drive. It's using the onboard graphics. The other computer does not exhibit the issue. It's an new Intel build. Could this be an AMD processor related issue? It's a rackmount working as a file server and its CPU, though a bit long in the tooth, is more than enough power for performing sync and offsite backup. So I will not be interested in upgrading it. The goal is for it to sync around 15 folders, in total, from around 3 PCs all over a LAN. If it's struggling with one folder... This will likely be the final nail in the coffin for Sync, for me. It's been one issue after another ever since 1.4, and I have some workflows that are starting to get critical.
  4. I know simply this: they'd have had my money already, if there were a purchase option. Because there's only a rental option, they'll get nothing. The only reason to not provide both options, to literally turn down money, is if they have calculated that those who would prefer to purchase, but can't and so will begrudgingly subscribe, will be large enough in number to offset the loss that is the purchasing model (as compared to the subscription-based cash-cow). This alone, speaks to how overwhelmingly profitable the subscription-model is. Aside from this, the four biggest issues I have with subscription-based models, for software, is that it kills incentive to innovate because the developers already have your money; it dismantles the cycle of reward for significant features and fixes. What's more, the subscription model is unfair to those for whom the version they're on is working with their configuration, and therefore don't need to upgrade. The basic user ends up subsidizing the more advanced user with more complex configurations that do need to upgrade due to the never ending (but understandable) bug cycles. E.g., mobile and exotic NAS configurations. Those with the exotic (and never working perfectly) configurations should be the ones that pay the upgrade fees for the new versions they need, or choose subscription-based if the numbers work favorably in their more bleeding-edge situation. The user simply syncing two PCs together shouldn't have to shoulder that burden with the same subscription price. Thirdly, the subscription model often works to rewards bugs, because the more buggy the product, the more justification there is to continually pay. You continually pay for promises. If it worked perfectly, no one would see the need to keep paying endlessly; and without any ownership... Lastly, there is never any sense of ownership. Years of payments, of being a loyal customer, end up meaning nothing to the renter once the money stops flowing outward. When the rent cycle is up, the payer must revert to the free version. They don't even get to "keep" (use) the last full version they were on! Worst customer loyalty program ever. There is no way the subscription model can be the future vision of software, except through the distorted lens of the largest software companies (like Adobe), because they're the only ones that could afford a dystopia in which all the software they, themselves, need internally, would each have a monthly / yearly fee. For the rest of us, in this subscription-crazed dystopia, our software tools would quickly add up to be more than our mortgages / rent / car payments. So, anyone doing it now, it's untamed gold rush greed, pure and simple. I will not support what is not sustainable. I have no problem with companies that offer both methods of monetizing and will very likely open my wallet for BTS if it happens.
  5. This software subscription model frenzy is getting out of hand. There is no way I'm adding local file syncing software to my monthly budget alongside Adobe and others. The growing trend of essentially renting software and losing control of when, why and how one decides to upgrade to new versions, is extremely troubling. It's why many of us were attracted to BTS to begin with; to avoid the cloud subscription model. How ironic that BTS's first monetization should be so cloud-like. I understand the need to monetize and might be willing to pay a good amount (more than 40.00, even) for the Pro version if the software were guaranteed to continue working on the version I decided to purchase and perhaps stay with, bugs and all (no software is bug-free) until I decide to upgrade. I think you may be underestimating what people would pay to "own" a major version of BTS (i.e. 2.x) with small maintenance updates until the next version (which you then charge an upgrade fee for). You should provide the option and find out. Charge what you want. You have nothing to lose, but revenue. You're in control of when your software gets bumped to the next major (pay for) version, after all.
  6. I was sad to see "quick view" dropped as an option for PDFs in the latest iOS version. Might it be coming back, or is it gone for good? Having to switch to another app, and back, for each viewing really kills this kind of workflow (and a very useful workflow). If it might be returning, I'd love to see an option to have it automatically use the built-in PDF viewer without additional choices (for fast, fluid reading of PDFs). Obviously, this "advanced" feature would not be the default and could be disabled in preferences at any time. Cheers.
  7. The latest beta is maddening. Generally, just not syncing. Rebooting and sync will sometimes start, but stop after a minute or two. Endless "out of sync" statuses; showing that it's in sync when it's not. Not showing peers when they're there. When peers do show, it often shows them as offline when they're not. Often not even attempting to sync when several volumes are mounted and creating a situation where only removing all but one volume (on a particular server I use to Crashplan all my BTSync volumes), will restore BTSync's attempt to sync (but it still doesn't). For the few minutes it tries to sync, it shows bandwidth as being insanely slow with a sync time of 365 years, or similar (only Ray Kurzweil will be around for that). CPU usage across all my devices has noticeably increased the ambient noise of my work area (I can live with that if it gets fixed). Unfortunately, there's no alternative that will do what BTSync does across the devices it does it on. And now that I see the brilliant potential of it, it's hard to un-know that. There needs to be a way to donate money, or something to this project. Whatever is needed to hire another developer or four. This project deserves more attention, support and resources. It has the potential to be a game-changer. (Btw, while I was typing this, my "365 year sync" now says 346 years, so it thinks it's making progress, but hasn't even synced a single file -- not sure how that math works.)