ivarson

im in no position of telling how btsync works, but are you sure that the backupfile doesnt change between sync-attempts? have you taken md5/sha on the file? surely sync shouldnt restart if the hash stays the same?

Hi. I'm currently hospitalized with my son for a while and while I've got public WiFi, it's arp isolated so my android and laptop won't find each other on Lan, (even if it wasn't Im still throttled at 2 Mbit or so) that got me thinking about whether it's possible to sync sorta adhoc between my two devices. I tried to tether Internet from my phone and connected my laptop but the traffic went through the trackers. I didn't try to force local though. Not entirely sure how Android behaves while sharing Internet but since I can share my 3g to a chromecast here and then cast to it through the phone, Im sure that the Android tethering Internet can also access the Lan segment. Ive got root but I'm just too tired to lurk around with adb shell and check routes and iptables. Have anyone done sync on an adhoc connection. I'll rather not share Internet from my Windows laptop since I need the phone's 3g for chromecast entertainment here ☺

+1 !

if i recall, it was stated that on encrypted side, the archive was used when, in some scenarios, a simple rename op. would cause a FS delete/create command. then sync would use the archive for this

Are you sure you're actually use the builtin Administrator account? By default you're often using an additional account within the admin group. Make sure it's simply not disabled (or use your current account) Also I suppose the machine isn't joined into a corporate domain? ☺

Obviously that will work, it's a completely different machine and the data will stay encrypted if copied elsewhere. However it would probably be more adequate to encrypt the underlying disk itself if possible. In windows 8+ it's very easy to create encrypted vhdx (which indeed aren't bound to VMs) and performance might as well be improved too (just guessing though), you can also choose between aes 128 (like in btsync) or aes-256. That's right of course. Although creating an encrypted vhdx with virtual smartcard technology and the vm having only a private nic against the host it is pretty hard to "hack" that isolated vm since it wouldn't even have lan nor Internet access in any direction. But yeah, you're still right :-p

Obviously that will work, it's a completely different machine and the data will stay encrypted if copied elsewhere. However it would probably be more adequate to encrypt the underlying disk itself if possible. In windows 8+ it's very easy to create encrypted vhdx (which indeed aren't bound to VMs) and performance might as well be improved too (just guessing though), you can also choose between aes 128 (like in btsync) or aes-256.

+1 Or simply https://gersync.com/secret?<folder secret> That's something I miss comparing btsync to centralized providers. Sounds like pretty much work though, how would up/downloads be done? A javascript-based bittorrent client running at clientside sounds unrealistic, and a browser plugin to manage the transfer is sort of love downloading the whole client. Since the main thing of btsync is it being p2p it also seems plain wrong to have additional servers between Web client and peers, converting torrent to simple GET. Good idea anyway, I'll be following this one..