Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'enterprise'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Resilio Sync
    • Sync General Discussion
    • Sync Troubleshooting
    • Sync for NAS (Network Attached Storage)
    • Sync Stories
    • Developers
    • Feature Requests

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 5 results

  1. I recently did a contract with a Fortune 500 client that requires SAS 70 Type II, SSAE 16, ISAE 3402, and/or SOC2/3 certifications amongst other guarantees like 99.9% SLAs and so on and so forth when working with external vendors. Moving data securely is always a sensitive issue. The company required AES256 at rest and during data transmission. BT Sync (now Resilio) only currently supports AES-128, which is problem number one, but I still floated BT Sync for transmitting large assets that weren't mission critical. During a security review legal called attention to a clause in Resilio's Terms of Use. The proposal to use BT Sync was ultimately shot down because the wording in Resilio's Terms of Use suggested there might be a backdoor in the BitTorrent Sync / Resilio software that allows Resilio and/or its partners to access user assets through an undisclosed channel. The exact complaint was with the wording in the "Terms" as seen when installing or upgrading to Resilio for the first time: The specific complaint was with section 7.a and 7.b (Investigations). I pointed out that "Materials" was defined as: The problem is that "Your Content" and "User Content," defined in section 2.b, are still open to interpretation in the ToS since "Service" is broadly defined (in section 1.a) as: Section 2.b (Use of Services & Materials) then states: This was the deal breaker because "Service" includes the software used to transfer data (aka BitTorrent Sync or now Resilio), not just the web site(s) and emails. Moreover, the Privacy Policy didn't categorically state that Resilio is incapable of tracking and accessing user files merely that Resilio doesn't -- which could be a matter of choice. I would like to recommend BitTorrent Sync again in the future, but I know many of the clients I work with will go through the same process and ultimately voice the same concerns. Are there any plans to provide clearer language that categorically states Resilio / BitTorrent Sync has no known backdoors that would allow the company or any outside parties from snooping on clients data and no known mechanisms to subvert the security of the software?
  2. Hi all – I’m looking for a replacement for an antiquated (and slow) nfs configuration that we use for our servers (about 40 total, but several different volumes) and am testing some different software including lsyncd, csync2, syncthing, and btsync. I haven’t seen a lot of lan-only or enterprise threads here but maybe that discussion has been limited moreso between clients and support. I’m hoping you guys could offer some insight. First let me list the things I’m looking for: 100% internal – no access to an external tracker and i want no discovery/broadcast traffic of any sort. Each sync’d folder would be shared among 4-12 servers across several datacenters (private wan) of varying latencies. Each synced folder could contain a few dozen or a few hundred files, it’s not determined if we’d be using this for deployment or just for keeping potentially dynamic data in sync. Each server is considered commodity, aka everyone is equal. No centralized tracker, no master server of any sort.. everything is an equally disposable asset. I need to be able to add and remove servers at any time. Some of my concerns: Race conditions – something I ran into when using the lsyncd + csync2 combo is when a sync is triggered with more than two nodes there was a cascade effect.. Copying files from node 1 -> node 2,3,4 would cause node 2 to sync to node 1,3,4, then node 3 to sync to nodes 1,2,4… etc. this in theory causes data to be distributed quicker but it’s bad because you have more than one server trying to copy a single file to a server. Load increases on all servers and network congestion becomes an issue with large files. Adding new servers – if I join a new server to the cluster that has no files in a synced folder what happens? Is there ANY chance that the existing servers will experience data loss? I can not risk data loss in any way, shape, or form. Max files and/or servers before performance degradation? Would adding additional nodes of higher latency effect the replication speed between the nodes with lower latency? How are split brain scenarios resolved? For example if you have two datacenters with four nodes each, the wan connection is broken for five minutes, however changes are made on both sides of the wan. When the connection is restored how does btsync deal with that? How does btsync handle files that are currently being written to? For example a file that is being uploaded or a log file that is continuously being written to for 30 seconds. I’m sure some of these things have been covered elsewhere in the forum but I figured it might be good to get them all in an “enterprise” thread. Any input at all is appreciated, thanks in advance!
  3. Adding CMIS (1.1) server capability to BTSync Business Edition would open it up to an interesting enterprise use. If you have an ECM service in your organization, it is very likely that it can talk CMIS. Such systems could talk to a local BTSync node with CMIS listener for replicating their repositories locally, but then the BTSync node coud be part of a cluster of nodes, located on premises and/or in cloud, that could cheaply allow achieving the planned repository replication quorum/goal.
  4. Hi people, I'm Diego, work on Conexia and I love Sync! I'm here to talk about the use of bysync to copy the back ups (and other stuff) from a lot of client to a central server where the files goto a tape. At this moment, I have 5 CentOS clients sending files to a Windows 2008 R2. All the btsyncs apps are working as a service. All the CentOS have one shared folder (all by config file) Windows only have RO Secrets (configured by the GUI) Additionally, i formatted the volume for the shared folders into 64K to reduce the IO. Please, let me know what you think and how to get it better. Saludos, Diego
  5. Hi. I had just read about BitTorrent Sync and really needed to try this. If this SyncApp would focus a bit more on Enterprises, this could be a little tool that lots of system engineers would like! Our company has about 100 employees, 50 internal, 50 on the road. Currently, the people on the road need to establish a VPN connection over a 3G mobile internet stick so they can access 'their' files. These files are on a fileserver with folder based ACL's on each folder (/project). A quick look tells me we have 237 active projects. Each of those folders is assigned to an owner but every one of those 100 employees must be able to add content to some folder within these projects. (in other words.. a default company acl) Microsoft's Offline files has sooo many drawbacks.. i hardly know where to begin. In short.. i'm not using offline files but i need the some sort of flexible sync like this. The peer-to-peer solution would do wonders in my case since in many cases, these employee's working on the same project reside in the same remote location. Thus when 1 person makes a change, this change would be distributed to the server but the other workers in the same location would just recieve this file over the local connection. This is great!! If this SyncApp could preserve the file ACL, it could help me and MANY other companies. I realise that this is easier said then done. Setting an ACL within the same domein is not a problem. This is done by unique global identifiers. But when a local administrator takes control over a folder and makes changes to a file that normally he wouldn't have write access too... the file shouldn't be uploaded to the server. Perhaps, the easiest way to prevent abuse is to only exclude files that this user had no write access to. If I can help/assist in any ways to make this 'wish' possible. I'd be glad to help.