Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'idea'.
I just got an invite to the alpha, and I am already using it to sync a metric shitload of files. My impressions are mixed, but this is not wher eI want to write them down. I am a proffessional software testers, and I instinctively come up with various test Ideas. Because I have limited time to ACTUALLY perform this test in the near future, i thought i could at least write about it here. My test idea is described in the attached picture. Ask for clarifications, if necessary. <==== look at the picture now, then continue reading ===> <LATER EDIT> </LATER EDIT> <LATER EDIT2> image embedding of any kind seems to be broken on this forum. use this dropbox link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/uqiqiebi25ax2cc/SyncApp%20test1.png </LATER EDIT> there would be a varying number of machines from each of the described three categories. Windows path notations are used, but the test idea is not limited in terms of OS architecture. My questions would be the following: - how would users expect this to work? - how do the developers expect this to work? - has anyone tried it yet? - does it work? - should it work? (the nuances of the questions are actually relevant to me, and are not written just for artistic value) please add any commentary on the subject, other than what i posted.
If we had a BTSync CDS (Content Delivery System), as a separate client with some extra abilities I can see endless possibilities. In this post I realized BTSync creates a new torrent for each file. This is a far more clever way to deal with updating torrents that what I would have imagined. Props to the devs who came up with it! If each file is its own torrent, then all we need (if it isn't so allready) to make a sofisticated CDS is to be able to construct a share out of the existing torrents, and distribute the appropriate keys to decrypt, or download the files. The most important feature of BTSync is the ability to be used by someone who doesn't know left from right on a computer. You can make an installer that creates the folder, and sets up a share for your grandmother, all she has to do is download an executable, double click it (then click past the billion warnings if she uses windows) and voila, you have a shared folder(or folders depending on your needs). You could make two folders for instance, one for sending (where she has to have read-write access) and one for receiving (where read-only would be better). Hoarders of data like me is likley to have several terrabytes of data, to sync all this to my grandmother would be extremly inconvinient, and undesirable as parts of the files are private, and parts of the files are uninterssting to her. But when I setup one or more nodes to mirror all my files, I wouldn't want to have to make a symlink on each and every node (I might even be unable to if they use read-only encrypted secrets), if I then were able to use the BTSync CDS to link my /massive-btsync-folder/picutres/respectable-christmas-photos/ to her /home/grandma/shared-folders/lolcat/incoming, she would be able to join the swarm and benefit from the aggregate bandwith of my servers, and whomever else I shared the file with. The BTSync CDS could allow all kinds of interessting combinations of data, something that would be far out of the scope for the average Joe who just wants his girlfriend to get his phone pictures, but would be perfect for people who share a lot, and have a lot of files. This way we enable advanced users to fully utilize the opportunities the software provides, while still making the basic features extremly simple for the normal users who is just thrilled that someone after all these years invented a way to send files without hassle. I am not sure if this is features that "Sync Enterprise Beta" is planning, and therfore Bittorrent inc is unwilling to allow API calls to enable the creation of this software. I do see how this would be usefull for managing massive shares for a big company. An intranet where access is ensured, and speeds are fast both internally and externally. The ease of adding all the encryption read-only keys to an existing share would allow seeding, backups (if the secrets are also backed up) and distribution without having to care about the platform, or implement additional encryption. Either deploy the btsync application to a server (virtual or dedicated), or find a provider that will accept your encrypted read-only key, and voila it is good to go. It is so simple, yet so brilliant. I can see so incredibly many uses if you could cross refrence files between shares, add shares to other shares, and modify the share structures. Bill quits, no problem, make a new group share, sync the old one, attach it to the required users shares, and delete the old one. Downloading is slow in the building across campus with the slow uplink: just add a node there, install any OS, give it an encrypted share, and add the shares and files relevant for that group to it. Data is encrypted, and speed is ensured. A few client features would also be benificial for this system, first it has to be able to get the secret for each file and store it in a database. In addition it should have some way to backup the entire list of secrets, think something like KeePassX, a master password, and you can see all your secrets, you could even sync it to your phone, then if you need to share a folder, you can simply generate the QR code, and they can add it. And the clients API would have to be greatly enhanced. It seems the features of the API is rather limited at this moment. The ability to add web-seeds and a share browser would be nice (almost like µTorrent, you can walk through folders, see what is there, and then download the files you would like), although a setting to not download anything, and ability to download one and one file through the API would make us able to produce this ourselves. Improved statistics would also be important to monitor preformance and discover bottlenecks. It would be nice if BTSync provided a way to easily identify if the storage media, or network, or the cpu, or ram is the bottleneck. This would make improving preformance much easier. The ability to bind to different interfaces is also important, maybe you have multiple networks, NICs or internet connections. Being able to bind to only the network interfaces you want makes setting the network up easier. Then you also need to be able to configure them differently, and preferably be able to setup rules for seeding. Being able to specify a blacklist or whitelist would enable this. The BTSync CDS should be able to analyze the preformance of the nodes, I wonder if the easiest way to do this would be to add your own tracker, and then have all the BTSync instances report back their numbers (max speed, min speed, average speed, how much downloaded, how much uploaded, possibly CPU use, ram use, free disk space too). It should also be able to connect to nodes and specify behaviour, like when to sync, bandwith limits on different days, and times of day, limits on who to seed to, and prioritizing specific shares or users. A node only serving the LAN would be desirable in many setups, or a "master" node only used to sync the other "master" nodes. Then you could setup a master node to sync other master nodes and ignore users (preferably the ability to limit or ignore users or user groups based on the day and the time). So now all we need is to fork BTSync, or hope for the developer to open up the API and add the few missing features to allow us to make this work. After the API and the features are implemented it is just a simple matter of programming. I would love to hear more about your thoughs and ideas around this.
Dear BitTorrent, I had a great idea after reading about Sync and I thought I'd mention it because I think it would come as a very handy product to a lot of people who will be using Sync. What if you made a piece of hardware that you could connect to your TV and it would let you login to your Sync account allowing you to stream any video or music files right to your TV? I think this would be a great idea to put into motion because I've struggled with the problem of lag well watching many of my high quality bluray's on a cheap computer. Not a lot of people can afford really nice computers these days and a lot of us like our digital copies of blurays which we like to watch on our computers but this fills up a lot of space really quick because as you know, blurays that are good aren't compressed meaning they take up a lot of space. This is the reason I find Sync amazing, it's going to be of great use to me and anyone else in my position. I think the hardware idea would be great because then not only do I have a ton of space for all my bluray movies but now I can stream them without lag right to my TV using a small hardware device that you could create and either give to people with no charge or sell for a really cheap price since it's probably going to cost money to ship it to people so you'll need to make something from each unit you sell in order to pay for all the shipping costs. This could change the way we watch our entertainment forever, Sync could not just become the greatest online storage client in the world but also the best way to watch your movies and music with the touch of a button. Let me know what you think, same with all the users on this forum. I'm a totally new user here but I'd love to hear user feedback on my idea. I'm not asking for anything in return for my idea if taken into consideration. You're consideration in my idea would be all that I need to make me a happy man.