-
Posts
3 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by derBoris
-
-
Hey @RomanZ, thanks for the quick response.
1.) I never touch the Sync-Storage on my NAS directly. Only the two Macs are writing/reading from/to that directory (and this happens only via BTSync; Never via finder/terminal/...). So i think it's save to disable the indexing on the NAS.
2.) I need BTSync to sync changes to the NAS as quickly as possible (not once a day). But as far as i could see, BTSync is doing just that! If i'm working with Lightroom, changes are written almost in realtime to the NAS. So i would think that i never every need an indexing on the Macs too... I would just set it to a long interval for such edge-case... but then... not sure if i really need that at all - in my usecase...
a) the Lightroom-Database is synced right when it changes. Done. No Index needed. (and index wouldn't help too: If this file isn't synced to the NAS NOW, it wouldn't for the rest of the day because i set the Mac to sleep before it could index...)
b) the other files are JPG-Previews... if some of them wouldn't sync - no problem: The other Mac will rebuild them as needed (Lightroom)
My worst-case scenario:
- change the Lightroom-Database on Mac1
- BTSync may not get notified about that changes and won't sync to the NAS
- Mac1 is set to sleep
- Waking Up Mac2 - It's not getting any new Database because - see above
- Now changing something on Mac2 on that database
- BTSync is getting notified and syncing to the NAS
- Set Mac2 to sleep
- Now wake up Mac1 again... What will happen... File on NAS is newer (date) (changes from Mac2) - but these changes are not including the not-synced-changes from Mac1.... I don't think BTSync can merge a SQLlite-Database so i'm worried, that i will now lost the older changes (and that wouldn't be solved with an Indexing every 10 Minutes - not in all cases)
Is this assumption right?
-
Hi,
i've installed BTSync on my Synology and on two Macs to sync around 100k files in about 25 GB (lots of JPG and RAW files and a Lightroom database). So far it works… but…
The Mac-Client – on is a MacBook Pro – is doing an 'indexing' every 10 Minutes. Every 'indexing' takes a few minutes where BTSync is consuming up to 100% CPU.
I've searched a bit and read some longer threads about this indexing-feature but i think i didn't really get it:
- Indexing is building a catalogue of all files that i like to sync to detect new/deleted files?
- But then, changes made on one mac are transferred to the NAS in nearly realtime… not every 10 Minutes… And if i wake up my MacBook, the files are downloaded from the NAS nearly instant … not after 10 Minutes
So again - what is the purpose of creating an index every 10 Minutes? Are there save ways to optimize the clients behavior?
I like to have my Lightroom-Files in sync on both Macs and i'm using a NAS because both Macs are not running at the same time. Both Macs are creating/deleting files (JPG-Previews etc.). The NAS is running 24/7 so the 'truth' should always be on that NAS…
In this case: Is it save to say, that i don't need to build an index on the macs every 10 Minutes but for example only once a day? I mean: If i'm working on the local iMac, changes are synced to the NAS in real-time. If i'm working on the MacBook it's the same when i'm at home.
Only if i'm working on the MacBook while i'm traveling i need to be sure, that the MacBook will sync all new/changed files to the NAS when i'm back home - While BTSync is running, it should know those changes in realtime, right?
So - Why do i need such index in my use case? Is it save to turn it off or set it a way longer interval (once every 10 hours or so) on the mac-clients? Could i even change the interval on the NAS (or turn it off completely) to let the HDDs sleep again from time to time?
Thanks a lot for your help to clarify this topic
Synology and 2 Macs - Optimize 'indexing'?
in Sync General Discussion
Posted
Hey @RomanZ,
cool, so i think it should work now. I've set the indexing-Interval to 0 (zero) on both macs and to a very long period (a day) on the NAS.
As long as the OS-X works correct, this should work fine. I think that's enough for my usecase right now I will see...
Thanks again for the quick reply