Silly Slow Sync Speed over WAN

[Tommmii]

Hi all,

I've just installed BT Sync, while I love the idea I'm having a bit of a speed issue.

Here's my setup :

BTSync is freshly installed on 2 W7 computers. Sync is happening over WAN.

I used to sync manually using FTP, so both pc's have an existing fileset. Syncing is mainly for backup purposes, from 1 machine to the other, rarely the other way round.

BTsync is currently indexing on both machines, as I speak 330GB in 808 files, the folder actually contains 2.21TB in 5578 files over 435 subfolders. There's a while to go before indexing will be done I guess...

Indexing is eating some CPU cycles and memory, but nowhere near saturation. We're talking 30-50%.

While indexing is happening a file transfer has started, highest UP speed I've seen is 30kB/s. This is _very_ slow when compared to an FTP transfer which saturates the upstream link at 3.1Mb/s

This screenie clearly shows what I mean. In the graph you see BTSync transferring, then the graph ramps up as I start an FTP transfer.

So, the question is obvious : why is BTSync not reaching the same speeds as the FTP transfer???

Sorry if this post seems long-winded, I really would like this to work, as BTSync offers set-it & forget-it vs manual FTP syncing.

cheers,

Tom.

[pansono]

I'm still testing BTsync with a 20GB folder and during indexing it did not transfer anything. Now, as indexing has finishes, it uses my full bandwith (currently between 3 machines). Perhabs its getting better when the index is complete.

[yottabit]

Transfers are definitely slow until indexing completes. I've seen this behavior often, even when indexing from SSD (though it was a bit less affected).

[Automatic Coding]

Transfers are definitely slow until indexing completes. I've seen this behavior often, even when indexing from SSD (though it was a bit less affected).

Unrelated but:-

I was recently running a "du" command on a folder that had ~ 20,000 1MB files on my laptop, and, it was slowed to a pulp, literally unusable (Hell, terminal took ~ a minute to load). This is on a laptop that can run the majority of games on medium settings at 120FPS ('3d' screen).

Morel of the story:- Hard-drives are terrible for quick access, however, are extremely cheap for long time storage of anything compared to HDDs, other than maybe large large databases/rainbow tables.

[Tommmii]

indexing is getting close to finishing... 200GB left out of 2.21TB, it has been chewing on this for just about 24 hours.

Hopefully the transfer speed will multiply by 10 after indexing... ?

[Xanza]

I'm going to assume that you're using WAN as a colloquial for wireless area network instead of it's correct abbreviation for wide area network -- assuming that, ensure that you have NAT turned on and correctly configured with universal plug and play.

I have Sync installed on a local instance of Raspberry Pi running via Cat5e and I've been able to transfer 8GB of information (limited by the size of the SD card) in less than 2 minutes.

[Tommmii]

Actually, when I write WAN, I do mean WAN. As in the opposite of LAN.

If I were talking about a wireless local network, that would have been WLAN.

Both machines are showing a direct connection to each-other (arrow icon in devices tab). I saw in other threads that this indicates NAT and/or UPNP are functioning properly.

[Tommmii]

happy to announce : indexing has finished & BTSync is now saturating the WAN connection!

<-- Happy camper.