Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'windows server'.
Dear devs and community! First, let me thank everybody for supporting the development of such a great client! I want to deploy BT Sync as an addition to syncing HUGE 6TB+ 300k+ files folder between domain servers running DFS Replication and VSS, and non-domain workstations and would like to hear if there are any considerations. My current scenario is the following: 1. There are 3 physical sites with 3 Windows Server 2003R2 32bit servers running in single domain (all three are domain controllers) 2. This huge folder is being replicated using DFS-R (DFS Replication) between all 3 servers, located on some NTFS volumes and backuped inside that volumes with Volume Shadow Copy mechanism (last 61 snapshots) daily 3. One server is considered as "Main" as it is big, physical and 24|7 online. The second one is movable from apartment to apartment with me and actually "hosts the folder" for the workstation i work on The third one is a virtual machine to work truly on the go when i need that folder with me 3. All workstations connect to the servers via SMB (network file sharing) to access the folder My desired scenario using BT-Sync: 1. Main server hosts both DFS-R and BT-Sync replication over the same folder 2. Second server remains with DFS-R and shares folder for workstations via SMB 3. Third server is eliminated (was used as a VM for mobile workstations) 4. Truly mobile workstations (Win XP, Win 7 32|64) have full copy of the folder synced via BT-Sync Thus no duplication between BT Sync and DFS should exist as only the main server will have both, all other nodes will use only one or another I've searched the forum and came up empty, my basic questions are the following: 1. Can BT Sync live together with DFS-R? Both syncs should be fully bi-directional 2. Can BT Sync handle such a huge amount of data? (DFS-R does never rescan the whole folder. it uses USN, AD and some other mechanisms to sync only changes) 3. Can BT sync live together with VSS? I.e.: 3.1 Does it work well during the process when the Shadow Copy of the volume is being created? 3.2 Can it break down VSS capability on the volume as, say, some Acronis products do? 4. When i deploy BT Sync, what is the best way to pointing BT Sync to the "current" big folder on the master server and point the client to the "new" place where the folder's copy should be to make sure that: 4.1 Big folder contents do not get erased with the "empty" folder from the workstation 4.2 Workstation gets full copy of the big folder and then only changes are synced Thanks a lot for your help! Best, Vlad
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.