chrisgull

Please make client builds for ARM/ARM64-based Windows 10 PC.

It's somewhat substantial, sure - but less than the hardware it runs on. Just my server hard drive pool cost 3x that. I think the point here is that enterprise pricing is vastly different than small business or home pricing. Your link to Windows server pricing makes a good point - $501 license for Server Essentials, $6155 for Datacenter edition. Now that's enterprise pricing.

Nah Server Essentials is not an enterprise product. It's geared - and priced - towards small business and home users.

What you don't get from Windows Home/Pro that I find essential in Server is full storage virtualization features.

FTR, your assumptions don't hold. I paid $12 on sale for my Windows Server 2016 Essentials license. Completely legal. I even called Microsoft to verify. List price was $399 for 2016, now $501 for 2019, but nobody seems to pay list price. Now, compare $12 - or $399, or $501 - over, say, five years to $1800 for Sync Business over five years.

BTW Local Share seems useful. Today I do backups by syncing my server data to a backup storage pool mounted to the same server. I had to create a different user login on the server to do this, and have a separate Sync instance running on that user's desktop. Local Share would make this really easy, as well as resource efficient. (Except I don't have a business license, so I can't use it.) Another thought on server license... I'd be willing to pay a one-time fee to add server license to my Home Pro license. But not $360/year. How about a one-time fee of $50?

Actually, the page you linked to states "Server Operating System means all Windows Server group and Linux and NAS with non-arm based CPU." This is of course a problem on the Linux side as well, as there are plenty of x86-based desktop installs, and NAS boxes suitable for home use. Once again, OS or CPU family is NOT an indicator of whether you run a business. Find a more appropriate way to differentiate home and business tiers.

This is a problem for my use case. I use a Windows Server 2016 Essentials as home NAS, with proper storage virtualization and redundancy. I have a Sync Home Pro license. Are you saying that 2.7 and later won't work on my server? I also disagree with the concept of deciding "pro" status based on operating system. There are better ways to tier licensing, like number of users. Besides, Windows Server Essentials was always targeted at the prosumer market, with media extensions for home media server use. In fact, its conceptual origins are from the Windows Home Server project initiated by HP. Keep in mind that this limitation is easy for a business to circumvent - just run a VM on the server with a consumer OS to do the syncing. Thinking this sort of licensing limitation would actually be enforceable is a bit naive.

There is an invalid assumption in Sync (and many other softwares) that media will not deteriorate over time. To detect deterioration, a forced full reindexing reading every single bit could be useful. I have not seen this function in Sync so I am requesting this feature. Background: I use Sync readonly shares to make offsite backups of a 20TB data set. Two backup sets are swapped by physically transporting drives to remote location for safe storage every 2-3 months. A few times deteriorated media has been detected, not when syncing but when explicitly scanning media surfaces with tools such as HD Tune. A built-in function in Sync to trigger a full reindexing would be a convenient way to verify that existing data is still readable. Currently using Sync 2.6.1 For Windows 64-bit, Home Pro license.

I am seeing 0.5 - 5 Mbps traffic between my two syncing Windows computers on a LAN in an idle situation, was expecting close to zero. Configuration: 15 folders, about 300K files and subfolders, about 1.5 TB in total. Both peers have finished indexing and syncing. rescan interval set to a large number. All folders are syncing with read/write keys. One folder is on a removable drive on one computer, and has been removed. LAN peer discovery is on. No peers outside the LAN when this behavior is observed. Questions: Is this a problem or expected behavior? If a problem, how do I diagnose this problem? Any suggested approaches to solve or workaround? Thanks.

Filter the history by folder, by peer, by time, and by text search. Current implementation of Windows GUI shows one monolithic list which decreases in value as the number of events, folders and peers increases. Some filtering could make the history quite useful.