luomat

Members
  • Posts

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by luomat

  1. And here we are, more than a year after AlexC's question, still asking if there's going to be a new version.

    It's almost as if we're asking about new versions because there are bugs and unimplemented features.

    I'm starting to wonder if we will ever see a native version of Resilio Sync on Apple Silicon (arm64/M1) Macs.

     

  2. On 12/10/2020 at 2:25 AM, Andy+ said:
    • Local folder sync

    I do use Local Folder sync, but only on one of my computers. I guess I can continue to use Resilio Sync for those folders on that computer, but otherwise… I think it’s time to start looking elsewhere. I’ve already found myself not recommending Resilio Sync to people when I would have in the past because its status is so unclear and we haven’t seen any staff or new builds for so long. 

  3. FWIW I have an M1 MacBook, and Resilio isn't too bad for me. I'm seeing CPU under 2% and it's not registering as high battery usage, so it may depend somewhat on your usage.

    It should also be noted that Dropbox, which is a much much much larger company still does not have an Apple Silicon build yet, nor do they have any public comments about when one will be available. In fact, earlier builds of Dropbox failed entirely on Apple Silicon.

    So, while I hope that there is an Apple Silicon native build coming, I'm willing to give them a little time.

    Now, if we get to the end of Jan / Feb and still haven't heard anything, then making some noise seems more reasonable.

  4. Resilio Sync has been designating several different Macs as having "Not enough free space on the drive.

    The drives actually have several hundred GB of free space. One of them had 343 GB free.

    All Macs are running Sync version 2.7.2.

    I have tried quitting and restarting the app on the machine that apparently has too little disk space. That does not seem to fix the issue, but then at some later point I will check again and the problem will have resolved itself.

    At one point tonight I had two Macs with plenty of disk space, each claiming that the other did not.

     

  5. Hi, and welcome to the forums!

    I'm a little unclear what you're asking, so let me restate what I think you're saying and asking, and if that's correct, then I can answer it, but if I'm not correct, then I'll need some clarification.

    1. You have "A" and "B" (where "A" is "studio hard drive array" and "B" is "an external hard drive
    2. "A" and "B" currently have all of the same media/data on them, but you want to move one of them (presumably "B") offsite
    3. Given that setup, you want to know if you can now add "A" and "B" to Sync, and will Sync be smart enough to figure out "Hey, these are identical" and not transfer all of the data again.

    If I have #1 and #2 correct, then the answer to #3 is YES. You can add them both to Sync. When you add the second one, it will prompt you and say something like "This folder isn't empty, do you want to continue?" Say yes, and it will start to sync.

    Now, I believe that the first time it is setup, it might take a little time for Sync to compare both folders and see if they are identical, and the length of time that takes will probably depend on whether that 7.2TB is a bunch of large files such as audio and/or video, or, say, 3 gazillion Word documents going back to 1987.

    If it was possible to bring the computer which "B" will eventually be connected to and add that computer to your LAN (with "B" connected), I assume that initial check would go faster, because it is all local rather than having to go across the Internet, but that might not be possible.

     

     

     

     

  6. I have absolutely no actual stake in this particular issue (I don't use Windows nor Windows Server, nor do I ever plan to)…

    However, as a customer and user of this software, I consider it absolutely unconscionable that terms of service for a license would be modified in a point update to a piece of software.

    I've been buying software for 20+ years now, and the very minimum terms of every (non-subscription) license have always been "If you buy version 1.0, you can use that license for all of the 1.x releases. You might have to pay to upgrade to 2.0, but once you do that, you can use all of the 2.x releases." And so on. Clean. Simple. Reliable. 

    The idea that you could use 2.6.3 but not 2.7 is completely absurd. It is wrong. It ought to be illegal, but that's another issue.

    It violates trust between the company and your customers, and it never should have been done.

    I am completely sympathetic to the fact that there are people who are mis-using the license in business settings. That sucks. But the response to some people being terrible should not include punishing others who are not being terrible. If that's what you decide to do, then you're being terrible.